|
On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults that are very similar but slightly different, for no apparently great reason.This may be a historical bias. XFS is a large code base (*), which means two things: a larger bug surface, and a larger memory footprint that used to be a problem for personal desktop-type machines but less so for better endowed servers. I understand that by now XFS got so much exercise that its robustness is unimpeachable. As to the size, I see that while the latest XFS kernel module is one of the larger kernel modules around, it probably is no longer significant on today's multi-GB systems---the extra megabyte at current memory prices is just a one cent increase in the system cost, after all. Having said that, I don't use XFS nowadays so I don't know how much more memory it allocates in typical use---can anyone comment on the actual memory footprint of running XFS? I am pretty sure that ext4 is a built-in module in Fedora kernels, as well as in the boot environment; making XFS the default will require also building it in, pretty much forever, while we still need extXX, and whatever comes next (btrfs?). I am OK with that, though. (*) 2.9MB of XFS source code vs 1.3MB in ext4 dirs (**) xfs.ko is 1.3MB |
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
