opinion on XFS
jsmith at structbio.vanderbilt.edu
Wed May 8 12:07:09 PDT 2002
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Donald Becker wrote:
> The SGI release of "Linux XFS" was a port of the Linux code to XFS, not
> a XFS implementation for Linux. The port was done in a way that
> minimized the XFS changes, instead making substantial changes the Linux
> kernel code. While the IRIX FS interface does have good design
> features, few people outside of SGI saw the benefit of having Linux be
> an IRIX clone.
I can certainly understand how someone with a large investment in the
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
it almost everywhere now. I would not think about using anything else if
it would just make it into the mainstream kernel. XFS performs flawlessly
for us. Performance, flexibility and stability are all there. I don't
have to worry about our filesystems anymore and that's a great feeling.
CXFS on Linux will be nice if it sees the light of day, but from what I
understand this will be a commercial product, not open source like XFS.
In any case, I really hope XFS makes it into the next kernel.
Jarrod A. Smith, Ph.D.
Asst. Director, Center for Structural Biology
Research Asst. Professor, Biochemistry
144 processes: 123 sleeping, 21 running
More information about the Beowulf