Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)

[Eray Ozkural]

On Thursday 09 May 2002 02:15, Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> 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.)

Your nodes don't die. That simple.

We are not so stupid to use crippled hardware. We're using exactly the same 
hardware before switching to XFS. With EXT2, and with the kind of parallel
research we're doing, a node would go down every few days. That is no more
the case with XFS, and yes it's the only cause to this particular change in 
system behavior.

How come you haven't heard many horror stories with EXT2? Almost anybody who's 
done some heavy coding or busy servers on linux would know that EXT2 is very 
likely to cause you more headaches, downtime, and corruption, than, say, FAT 
filesystem.

In case you haven't noticed, the design and quality of implementation of a 
file system can differ wildly. And yes, the file structures, data structures 
and algorithms used DO make a difference.

Just because it's got inodes doesn't mean it's the ultimate UNIX filesystem.

Go to #xfs on openprojects.net and ask them yourself what the difference 
between EXT2 and XFS is.

I don't think it would be fair to say "ext2 is good because lots of red hat 
users use it" without ever having experienced XFS. I'll underline that.

The only filesystem on linux that would come close to XFS is JFS and that is 
said to be still not-so-stable. Forget reiserfs, the docs scream no-no.

Thanks,

-- 
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo  Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C