On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular
objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit
sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having
defaults
that are very similar but slightly different, for no apparently
great
reason.
This may be a historical bias. XFS is a large code base (*), which
means two things: a larger bug surface, and a larger memory
footprint that used to be a problem for personal desktop-type
machines but less so for better endowed servers.
I understand that by now XFS got so much exercise that its
robustness is unimpeachable. As to the size, I see that while the
latest XFS kernel module is one of the larger kernel modules around,
it probably is no longer significant on today's multi-GB
systems---the extra megabyte at current memory prices is just a one
cent increase in the system cost, after all.
Having said that, I don't use XFS nowadays so I don't know how much
more memory it allocates in typical use---can anyone comment on the
actual memory footprint of running XFS?
I am pretty sure that ext4 is a built-in module in Fedora kernels,
as well as in the boot environment; making XFS the default will
require also building it in, pretty much forever, while we still
need extXX, and whatever comes next (btrfs?). I am OK with that,
though.
(*) 2.9MB of XFS source code vs 1.3MB in ext4 dirs
(**) xfs.ko is 1.3MB