El lun, 26-12-2005 a las 12:03 -0400, George N. White III escribió:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, don fisher wrote:
> I can determine that the XFS file system is supported. But it does not appear
> to be mainstream (e.g. no mkfs.xfs etc). Abut two years ago it was used for
> large (>4TB) and fast file systems.
And is still used for things like numerical simulations, rendering, and
remote sensing invlving terrabyte's of data where downtime is expensive
and thruput is important. XFS tries to ensure that the filesystem is
always consistent, so rebooting a huge after a crash does not require
running fsck for days before the system can be used.
> What is the current status of XFS. Most all of the documentation I have been
> able to locate date from the last century.
Maybe you were looking at docs on RH systems. There is an active mailing
list. SGI (who still support XFS as an open source project) has begun
using SUSE on their Itanium machines, so XFS is certainly being used by
the people who really need it.
There can be problems with XFS, especially if you get into edgy
workloads/hardware configurations, on 32-bit Intel (depending on the
devices) with the 4-k stacks on RH. Most people who really need XFS will
be using 64-bit processors. Some people have been running XFS on 32-bit
hardware in FC[34] without problems, but I suspect they have been lucky
with the workloads and hardware.
--
George N. White III <aa056(a)chebucto.ns.ca>
I'm been following this thread with some interest, now just to
contribute a single fact more: end-user i80x86 32-bit system, 7 months
fc4 running, 7 months running xfs partitions, but only in the /mnt
branch, as huge, extended partitions; p2p and multimedia use, so file
sizes are, in general, of hundreds of MB minimum; No one problem there.
Great. Efficiency, in two words...
Regards