Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 at 7:03am, Johnny Hughes wrote
I would also not use XFS in production ... but that is just me. If
XFS was production ready, it would be in RHEL. Since it is turned on
in Fedora and since it is purposely turned off in RHEL, one can
reasonably conclude that the upstream people DO NOT THINK it is
stable enough to use in production on RHEL. This is JUST my opinion :D
IIRC, RH's stated reason (stated on the mailing lists in the midst of
folks clamoring for XFS' inclusion) for not having XFS turned on in
RHEL is *not* that it's not production ready. It's that they only
have the resources (read: folks with knowledge in-depth enough to
satisfy enterprise customers) to support 1 FS, and that's ext3.
indeed, when I looked into using XFS for a large scale data store, I had
several XFS 'gurus' (freenode xfs channel) strongly recommend only
deploying it with the help of SGI consulting services, using a SGI
distribution. Since at the time, SGI's long term viability was dubious
(and its not improved any since then, this was about 2 years ago), I
moved on. We are currently using Solaris 10 plus ZFS for this
application, with satisfactory results (except some annoying problems
with marvel88SX sata drivers but thats another issue entirely)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
