Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)

Eray Ozkural erayo at
Thu May 9 05:15:46 PDT 2002

On Thursday 09 May 2002 04:48, Donald Becker wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> With SCSI disks or IDE disks?

With average IDE disks.

> In the months following the initial release of the Linux-XFS kernel
> (based on 2.3.99), we followed it closely.  Every time we would load a
> new kernel on a fresh system, XFS would horribly corrupt itself.  This
> continued for many months.  While at OLS I asked a XFS developer why
> they released a kernel that could not even boot without corrupting
> itself.  It turns out that they had never tested with IDE disks, and
> were using the IDE driver interface in an invalid way.  (When you change
> the block driver interface, it's difficult to claim that the bug is in
> the IDE driver.)  It supposedly worked just great with SCSI disks.

Okay. Now that may indeed be the case, because I never used XFS code prior to 
the one based on 2.4.x release. It does seem to be very stable at the moment, 
though, so perhaps you can give it a whirl again.

I trust your knowledge of the kernel more than any other person on the list, 
so maybe you can tell us, in your opinion, which filesystem is truly the best 
in an I/O intensive environment (parallel database/IR algorithms, etc.)


Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo at>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www:  Malfunction:
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C

More information about the Beowulf mailing list