Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 16:12 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote: > > >>As has already been said, it may not need much detail. The important >>points are probably that ReiserFS doesn't yet support key features x, y >>and z, >> >> > >Correct, that _needs_ to be in there. The problem with so many ReiserFS >advocates is that they've _never_ used it for a production NFS server, >or never used EAs. And there are recovery issues with the off-line >tools being "out-of-sync" with changes in the filesystem (something that >doesn't happen with Ext3 or XFS which have remained unchanged >structurally for 10+ years). > > > >>and XFS isn't suited or reliable for standard setups. >> >> > >XFS is _very_reliable_, but _only_ in the official SGI releases. I've >found that XFS in the stock kernel is _not_, and most 3rd party rebuilds >are incomplete and buggy. > >I wish Red Hat would support XFS. It has all the interface/ >compatibility, features of Ext3, plus a number more that enterprises >need. But until Red Hat takes the time to build and test a "complete" >XFS -- I can't trust the stock kernel builds or 3rd parties. > > > >>I tagged that myth on after an IRC discussion about unreasonable user >>requests - people semi-regularly claim that Fedora should >>support/default to ReiserFS (as SUSE does, I think) because it's >>supposedly faster or cleverer or whatever, >> >> > >ReiserFS is innovative. And it utterly _breaks_ standard kernel >interfaces and compatibility as a result. Even SuSE developers have >told me _not_ to use it for my needs, because their hacks for many >things (from NFS to EAs) are suspect. > > > >>and that XFS is l33t, so it should be a standard installation option. >> >> > >Actually, Red Hat needs to realize that Ext3 has scalability issues (I >don't like it above 100GB and I do _not_ trust it above 1TB), and >_lacks_ a lot of user-space features of XFS like xfsdump, xfs_fsr, >etc..., let alone EAs and other meta-data is stored directly in the >inode (which xfsdump then retains). > >I still have quite a number of Red Hat Linux 7.3 systems in heavy, heavy >production with SGI's official XFS 1.2.x release, and one major Red Hat >Linux 9 system with SGI's official XFS 1.3.1 release. But that's the >key issue, they are the _only_ official SGI releases for any distro. > >I've tried to integrate SGI's kernel builds from CVS into Red Hat >distros to little avail. And as I mentioned, the stock kernel releases >are incomplete -- especially the 2.4 backport that is now in the stock >2.4 kernel. I would _never_ run it, and the stock 2.6 kernel continues >to be suspect. > >Which means until Red Hat pro-actively develops and tests XFS in newer >kernel 2.6 Fedora Core releases, I can't trust XFS either. > >WHICH MEANS (AND I HOPE RED HAT IS LISTENING ;-), when I need a large, >scalable, high-performance NFS/LAN file server for my Fortune 100 >clients -- I deploy Solaris/Opteron now. Ext3 is _not_ cut it, and it >_never_ will. I have to agree 100% with Schwartz's comments -- Red Hat >is _ignoring_ a significant segment of the enterprise LAN server market. > >I still long for the day of the Ext3 + XFS combination Red Hat >distribution. Ext3 is better for system and smaller data volumes, XFS >is better for larger (especially large file) volumes. But that died >once SGI stopped releasing official releases -- the last being 1.3.1 for >Red Hat Linux 9. > >It's not about "l33t" -- there are serious enterprise features missing >in Ext3. > > > > Suggestion: Why don't you go ahead and write a wiki page about the assorted filesystems, their strengths and weaknesses, and why some aren't currently in Fedora. You could create the page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ/FileSystems and let me know when it is ready for review. Once we have a good version in place, we can write in just a small statement on the FedoraMyths page and direct the curious to the new page. If you would like to follow the progress of filesystem support and keep that page a living document, that would be great. We'll also create a link to the new page directly off of the FAQ. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64@xxxxxxxxx www.n-man.com --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
