Dave Airlie wrote: > 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. FWIW that turned out to be a non-error as well, test assumed 16k pages. > 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.. I'll test on x86 over lvm some evening or next weekend. It is a concern. My x86 mythbox is perfectly happy on FC6, though, running xfs on plain partitions (no lvm). -Eric -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
