On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 09:15 -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> Almost every time I've tested performance for my workload of interest, XFS
> kicks the $#@)$ out of ext3
It is clearly a trade-off. E.g. XFS's lazy allocation causes less writes
and less fragmentation. But in the event of a crash it is likely that
you will lose more data on filesystems with a lot of variable data than
ext3.
> 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 guess there are various reasons:
- 4K stacks were an issue at 4.0 time (maybe they still are, I don't
know).
- SELinux security labels cannot be stored with the default XFS inode
size (of course, the inode size can be set when creating a filesystem)
- XFS does not have data block journaling.
- Do you want to support more than one file system, when you have a file
system that is good enough?
-- Daniel
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
