On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 at 4:18am, Johnny Hughes wrote
Personally, I would not use xfs on Linux ... maybe take a look here:
Almost every time I've tested performance for my workload of interest, XFS kicks the $#@)$ out of ext3 -- we're talking more than 2X write performance on the same hardware. And every time I point out how poorly ext3 performs (either on the RH lists or the ext3 list) I get ignored or told it's my hardware (despite also providing the XFS numbers proving it's not the hardware).
And I won't even go into xfsdump vs. ext2/3 dump.
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060814 And see what several debain devel's say about XFS.
Yes, there was a bad bug with XFS recently. It's fixed now. It happens.
RedHat says it is not stable enough to use in RHEL.
I've never completely understood RH's opposition to XFS. I've heard several stories -- the 4K stacks issue (which is a long way towards being resolved in recent kernels), support issues, etc. I almost wonder if it isn't a case of NIH.
I don't think everyone can be wrong.
To add one more anecdotal data point, I've used XFS since RH7.3 (using pre 1.0 releases from SGI) and never lost *any* data to it. Transitioning to ext3 (to stay with officially supported kernels) was *painful* -- performance plummeted, and it forced me to rework many of my servers.
If you really want to use it, you can use the module you referenced above and our kernel. The standard RHEL kernel will not compile w/ anything except 4k stacks (that is how the CentOS kernel is released too) ... so if you want to do that, you'll need to figure it out.
Also (to the OP) keep in mind that x86_64 still uses 8K stacks. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
