On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:10:50PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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
> I could think of 2 guys they could easily snatch away from SGI that could
> bring such experience -- pretty much the 2 behind much of the VFS in
> kernel 2.6 anyway (so great resources regardless).
The main argument I can see is "clean upgrade path". XFS doesn't offer
anything hugely compelling over ext3 -- which is, after all, very flexible
and extensible. And Red Hat already *has* Stephen Tweedie.
> Feature-wise, probably not. The VFS in 2.6 brings a lot of former XFS-only
> features to _all_ filesystems. But I still see serious size limitations as
> well as scalability to Ext3 versus XFS.
Serious in some cases; not in the general case. Given the above, there has
to be something *widespread* that ext3 just *can't* do.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 81 degrees Fahrenheit.
