opinion on XFS
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Mark Hahn hahn at physics.mcmaster.caWed May 8 16:15:29 PDT 2002
- Previous message: opinion on XFS
- Next message: Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> inner workings of the Linux kernel would feel this way. However, from a > user/administrator standpoint XFS is a wonderful option to have. We use but why? what problem do you have with ext2/3? I was talking to someone today who thinks that server FSs should be designed to handle hard power-offs. I think that's silly, but don't mind that ext3 does. similarly, I don't think it makes sense to design FS's to support DB-like query, or even to support a billion files in one directory, or to optimize the packing of trivial-sized files. at least not here, that is, a compute-cluster mailing list. ext2/3 have always done just fine in performance and robustness in the expected server environment - platter-level throughput, robust fsck, etc. in short, what is it that XFS offers that people want so badly? (yes, it's true I don't see the point to reiserfs either.)
- Previous message: opinion on XFS
- Next message: Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
