On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:38 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:32:30 -0500 > > Dan Yocum <yocum@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> It's stable, widely tested, widely deployed, and > >> it's being actively developed and maintained (which is more than can > >> be said of some other filesystems that remain in the default list). > >> It's in the kernel, it shouldn't be "hidden" in the depths of > >> anaconda anymore. > > > > How's the SELinux support these days? And why can't I boot from xfs > > yet? > > Not addressing either of these questions directly, but with regard to > overall quality of xfs in F8... I ran the xfsqa test suite on > 2.6.23-0.71.rc2.fc8 over the weekend. Of the "auto" test group (those > expected to pass reliably), 90 of 93 tests passed (this after fixing a > quota bug I found & fixed over the weekend). Of the 3 failures, 2 are > "harmless" - i.e. no data corruption, security issues, or anything like > that - one is a bleeding-edge allocator feature not working quite 100%, > another has to do with slightly different log traffic pattern due to a > recent change w.r.t. the expected output. > > The "real" failure has to do with mmap writes into preallocated space; > I'll look into that as I have time. Don't we ship Fedora with 4K stacks, so I've heard XFS + RAID stuff can overflow the stack.. so it may not be the stable.. Dave. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
