On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Philipp Schrader <philipp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So I'm curious. Why xfs and fat and not, say, squashfs? >> https://reproducible-builds.org/events/athens2015/system-images/ > > It's a good question. It's largely because of historical reasons > internally. We started with XFS on the first iteration of our product. > We fixed a few minor bugs and were overall really happy with > performance etc. Later down the line came the question of system > upgrades without breaking what we currently had. Anyway, so XFS is > where we're at today. > > That being said, for the future something like squashfs is definitely > a better choice. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do more research on > that. Adding to the historical reasons list, we've got a lot of test time with XFS and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, and it's working well for us. That's always very hard to quantify when making a decision whether or not to switch filesystems. Austin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
