On 1 March 2014 21:37, Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote: >> On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +0000, Ian Malone wrote: >>>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >>>> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not >>>> sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's >>>> that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting >>>> new filesystems onto ext4 and in the past month we moved probably our >>>> largest remaining dataset (1.1TB) from XFS to ext4, the main reason >>>> has been flexibility with resizing. Particularly the XFS 32bit inode >>>> ceiling, (inode64 not working well with NFS). >> >>> As far as I know inode64 is not really a problem on NFS anymore, which >>> is why I did not raise this as an issue at all (I use NFS and I have a >>> 6TB XFS filesystem with inode64). >>> >> >> Unless you have legacy systems that must talk to it. > > Can we get some definition of "legacy" here? kernel/nfs-utils versions? > I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or recent Fedora, until recently some that were over five years old. Also this comment in the XFS FAQ: "Beware that some old programs might have problems reading 64bit inodes" which seems to be related to stat vs stat64, there are some old programs that might require us to modify. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
