El lun, 26-12-2005 a las 12:03 -0400, George N. White III escribió: > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, don fisher wrote: > > > I can determine that the XFS file system is supported. But it does not appear > > to be mainstream (e.g. no mkfs.xfs etc). Abut two years ago it was used for > > large (>4TB) and fast file systems. > > And is still used for things like numerical simulations, rendering, and > remote sensing invlving terrabyte's of data where downtime is expensive > and thruput is important. XFS tries to ensure that the filesystem is > always consistent, so rebooting a huge after a crash does not require > running fsck for days before the system can be used. > > > What is the current status of XFS. Most all of the documentation I have been > > able to locate date from the last century. > > Maybe you were looking at docs on RH systems. There is an active mailing > list. SGI (who still support XFS as an open source project) has begun > using SUSE on their Itanium machines, so XFS is certainly being used by > the people who really need it. > > There can be problems with XFS, especially if you get into edgy > workloads/hardware configurations, on 32-bit Intel (depending on the > devices) with the 4-k stacks on RH. Most people who really need XFS will > be using 64-bit processors. Some people have been running XFS on 32-bit > hardware in FC[34] without problems, but I suspect they have been lucky > with the workloads and hardware. > > -- > George N. White III <aa056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I'm been following this thread with some interest, now just to contribute a single fact more: end-user i80x86 32-bit system, 7 months fc4 running, 7 months running xfs partitions, but only in the /mnt branch, as huge, extended partitions; p2p and multimedia use, so file sizes are, in general, of hundreds of MB minimum; No one problem there. Great. Efficiency, in two words... Regards
