Kirk Bocek wrote:
Jim Perrin wrote:
... (otherwise I'm an xfs fan)...
Share your experiences with xfs a bit, if you would. Joshua seems to
have some history with it. Even Feizhou seems to have something nice to
say about it. :)
XFS was good...there were tests conducted against ext3 vs XFS in terms
of data loss and directory corruption and XFS did pretty well almost the
same as ext3...BUT that was the XFS version 1.1 patched against a 2.4.20
RH kernel or ages ago.
There have been opinions on LKML that XFS was really good around 2.4.18
- 2.4.22 and things I have been through seem to agree with that. With
regards to the current version, things have apparently got so messy that
some have publicly stated they do not want to have anything to with it.
My experiences with XFS on 2.6.x have not been very positive. I have
seen it go into read only mode quite a few times and forget about data
integrity in a crash or after a power failure. Performance wise, XFS has
mostly been very good.
XFS and Linux just do not meld together because Linux and the Irix
kernel do certain things differently according to some posts on LKML so
I guess there is a reason why Redhat has pulled XFS from its list of
supported filesystems.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
