> I'm continuously surprised at how little exposure XFS gets and how few
> of these specialized distros pay any attention to it. I guess because
> it's not in the mainstream kernel, people assume that it's Just Not
> Ready Yet, despite the fact that SGI announced the release of v1.3.0
> stable today - the fourth major release of the Linux codebase. To some
> extent I also "blame" RedHat for pushing ext3 so hard for all I can
> assume are strange political reasons.
In my case, it isn't any of those things at all - more a matter of
laziness. All my systems have had ext2 since before there were usable
versions of ext3 or reiser, and when ext3 came along, and I could just
"enable" it by making journals, rather than reformatting all my
filesystems, I said, "Why not?" Additionally, I don't toy with my kernels
as much as I used to back in the days when I was applying 3 different
patches to an early 2.4 prerelease kernel; I tend to use fairly vanilla
kernels now.
> In most benchmarks, and from a user-experience perspective, XFS performs
> much better than ext3 and has a much longer history of development and
> engineering, and above all, was written from the ground-up and is NOT an
> ugly hack on top of an older, non-journaled filesystem...
I'm sure you're right about performance; I don't thrash the disks enough
to take the trouble.
> Maybe once 2.6 stabilizes, with XFS as part of the core distro, XFS will
> gain more popularity.
Definitely - many people are too lazy to apply kernel patches, or leery of
building their own kernels at all.
Levi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:19:20 EDT