Feizhou wrote: > XFS has degraded over time. Some tend to say that XFS was in its best > form around 2.4.18 - 2.4.22 and I tend to concur since I know of a box > using XFS version 1.1 for 2.4.20 that proved to be very stable and > handled directories with hundreds of thousands of files on a daily > basis. XFS that comes with newer kernels get my view below. > > If you want to say that it is rock-solid in the sense that it does not > crash I will disagree with you. I have seen many occasion on which XFS > shuts itself down and a reboot is required to get the shutdown > filesystem up and running again. If you want to say that it is > rock-solid in the sense that it survives power outage or crashes > intact I will only agree on the count of file system integrity but not > on data integrity. No contest on XFS' performance. Hard to beat it > except for large deletes. > > Furthermore, certain kernel developers have been vocal about not > wanting to have anything to do with XFS code due to its complexity > and other reasons. XFS is also not supported with a 4K stack. Nasty > things happen. Since RHEL (save AMD64 kernels) use 4k stacks, it is > not surprising that Redhat has withdrawn official support for XFS on > RHEL4. > > If you are going to create an installer that supports XFS, please make > sure that the kernels involved all use 8k stacks. How you are going to > do that after installation, I do not know. I wonder whether the centos > plus kernels for Centos 4 use 8k stacks... Thanks for you explanation; it has been very clear. Now, I know the reasons why Anaconda doesn't support XFS by default. -- Jordi Espasa Clofent PGP id 0xC5ABA76A #http://pgp.mit.edu/ FSF Associate Member id 4281 #http://www.fsf.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
