Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> I think that you missed the main problem with all this new "great"
> filesystems. And the main problem is potential data loss in case of a
> crash. Only ext3 supports ordered or journal data mode.
>
> XFS and JFS are designed for large multiprocessor machines powered by UPS
> etc., where the risk of power fail, or some kind of tecnical problem is
> veri low.
>
> On the other side Linux works in much "risky" environment - old
> machines, assembled from "yellow" parts, unstable power suply and so on.
>
> With XFS every time when power fails while writing to file the entire file
> is lost. The joke is that it is normal according FAQ :)
> JFS has the same problem.
> With ReiserFS this happens sometimes, but much much rarely. May be v4 will
> solve this problem at all.
>
> The above three filesystems have problems with badblocks too.
>
> So the main problem is how usable is the filesystem. I mean if a company
> spends a few tousand $ to provide a "low risky" environment, then may be
> it will use AIX or IRIX, but not Linux.
> And if I am running a <$1000 "server" I will never use XFS/JFS.
This just is not the issue. If we only wanted filesystems which behaved
like ext2/3, we would only have ext2/3. The issue, if you have all
forgotten, is Linus not providing information on why XFS is a problem to
be merged. He asked them to make it easy to merge - they have done so.
Now they ask why the patch is ignored, and are promptly ignored further.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:32 EST