Re: XFS (read-only) support committed to CURRENT

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Cai, Quanqing wrote:

> On 12/17/05, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> >
> > > Your comment makes no sense.  What does being GPL have to do with
> > > choosing ext2fs vs. XFS?  We ported XFS to FreeBSD because we felt like it,
> > > and it was fun. [...]
> >
> > That's a compelling reason. Seriously.
> 
> No offense, you could port ext3 too if you like...
> 
> My company has 20s nfs servers(6 250G RAID 1 units), currently use
> SuSE9 w/XFS. I used ext3 on some but got long time fsck headache(Yes,
> I have data=journal in fstab, but journal will fail under heavy load).
> So personally I prefer XFS.

Failing journals are either I/O errors (dying hard disk drive) or
otherwise Linux kernel bugs.  I have not yet seen ext3fs + NFS (or only
the journals) break under load (SUSE 9.2 and 10.0) for any other reason
than a broken drive or broken cables. If you have a workload that
reproduces the problem, report it to SUSE.

OTOH, it's "only" one Xeon NFS server with 1 70 GB RAID5 and 1 292 GB
RAID5 (MegaRAID SCSI 320-1 with BBU) with half a dozen users at any one
time.

> BTW, thank Craig Rodrigues, Alexander Kabaev, Russell Cattelan and all
> others for porting XFS to FreeBSD, it's a good news for community. We
> need a journal FS on FreeBSD so badly!

:-)

-- 
Matthias Andree