On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
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
You need to count the jbd2 code for ext4 as well,
Ric
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
