|
|
| Applications |
| Mailing Lists |
| Miscellaneous |
| Operating Systems |
| Programming |
Re: Opinions XFS
Date: Mon Aug 06 2007 - 17:32:11 EDT
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:29:43PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:55:28AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
>>>> On Aug 4, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>> I'd have to modify that. Instead of NIH, my worry is that since XFS
>>>>> was designed for a different kernel, it's been "shimmed" into Linux
>>>>> and so doesn't integrate as well as ext2/3 and ReiserFS. Same
>>>>> concern with jfs.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that's a valid concern, but in the absence of any evidence
>>>> of problems caused by it I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep. :)
>>>
>>> Given that SGI boxes now use Linux and have dropped Irix but still use
>>> XFS, I think it pretty likely that they have done a good job of ensuring
>>> that Linux's XFS is up to snuff.
>>>
>>> IBM started JFS version 1 with AIX, then ported it to OS/2 and added
>>> features to make it version 2, then ported it back to AIX where it is
>>> the standard FS. They got Linux working on their newer Power servers to
>>> meet customer demand and ported JFS to linux so that they had a common
>>> filesystem irrespective of OS.
>>>
>>> In both cases, the porting was done or directed by the origionator of the
>>> filesystem for reasons that impact their bottom line. To some extent
>>> their reputations are on the line with their filesystems. As they are
>>> right now, I would trust them both equally well. They each have their
>>> stronger points that make one more suitable than the other for certain
>>> uses of the filesystem.
>>>
>>
>> I would too, until I found out JFS has no maintainer.
>>
> > Yikes. The jfsutils copyright and README.Debian are internally dated in > 2001 as if they are old packages. However, the changelog.Debian.gz and > changelog.gz are June, 2006. xfsprogs have more recent changes. Stefan > Hornburg is listed as "responsible for this Debian package". > > What exactly do you mean that JFS has no maintainer.
It has a maintainer, but he cannot work on it full-time:
- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:11:06 -0500 From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs, zfs on software raid 5
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 10:29 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Overall JFS seems the fastest but reviewing the mailing list for JFS it
> seems like there a lot of problems, especially when people who use JFS >
1
> year, their speed goes to 5 MiB/s over time and the defragfs tool has
been
> removed(?) from the source/Makefile and on Google it says not to use it
> due to corruption.
The defragfs tool was an unported holdover from OS/2, which is why it was removed. There never was a working Linux version. I have some ideas to improve jfs allocation to avoid fragmentation problems, but jfs isn't my full-time job anymore, so I can't promise anything. I'm not sure about the corruption claims. I'd like to hear some specifics on that.
Anyway, for enterprise use, I couldn't recommend jfs, since there is no full-time maintainer.
Thanks,
Shaggy
-- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.orgReceived on Mon Aug 6 17:32:38 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 09 2007 - 18:52:18 EDT
|
Contact Us Legal Notices Order Services Online Pantek Home Privacy Policy IT news Site Map Pantek Library |