On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 at 2:19pm, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote
> I haven't wanted to bother Tweedie and/or Red Hat in getting an
> explaination why they aren't looking at supporting XFS, but I think
> it would solve a lot of scalability issues. I always assumed it wasn't
> merely a "NIH" attitude, and they had real reasons for not wanting
> to support it until Ext3 proved to be a serious limitation for them.
The canonical reasons I've heard are 1) they don't want to spend the
money/time/resources to acquire enough XFS expertise to support it at the
Enterprise level and 2) besides, as of RHEL4 (they claim), XFS doesn't
provide anything ext3 already provides, so why bother.
Yes, I've pointed out on official Red Hat mailing lists that 2 is false
due (at least) to the issue of backing up ACLs (use star they say -- no
thanks, say I), but I got no response to that. And I've got benchmarks
showing XFS pretty handily beating ext3 on nice new hardware, but I don't
have much faith that would get any response either.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
