Filesystem recommendations
in [Debian]
|
Prev: overcoming the 32k objects limit is ext3 - which file system to use?
Next: Why is Acroversion not properly updated?
From: Ron Johnson on 4 May 2010 00:30 On 04/26/2010 03:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: [snip] > If it took only 2 weeks for the bulk of this effort, I can't > imagine they had to modify a ton of XFS code. IRIX was written in C as is > Linux, so the changes in XFS were probably fairly minor. Windows is written in C, Linux is written in C. Thus, it should be trivial to port Windows drivers to Linux? Obviously not. Bottom line: just because two OSs are written in C doesn't mean that (even if they are both Unix work-alikes) they have the same "guts" (data structures, assumptions, etc). > I'd venture to guess that the most significant Linux XFS changes were those > for the 32bit X86 code base. IRIX and thus XFS were born on 64bit MIPS RISC > CPUs. I *know* that part of what you wrote is wrong, since SGI started using MIPS chips in 1986 and the MIPS 4000 is from 1991. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_IRIS_4D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture#CPU_family XFS is from 1994, so it did have it's genesis on a 64-bit platform. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFA1FE.1020003(a)cox.net
From: Stan Hoeppner on 4 May 2010 01:00 Ron Johnson put forth on 5/3/2010 9:16 PM: > On 04/29/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Brenner wrote: >> Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or >> otherwise? > > They were posted to this list (within the last 6 months, I think). I've posted a few in the very recent past, although the content of the last two below is rather old, 2006 and 2003. Very recent raw data FS benchmark results for 2.6.34-rc3, includes all filesystems supported in the kernel: http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2010-04-14_2004/2.6.34-rc3/2.6.34-rc3.html Some older XFS benchmark/reviews with OP summary/recommendations: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388 http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435 It's interesting that both OPs come to the same conclusion, that XFS is the best all 'round file system for a small business or home server. This is very ironic given that XFS was designed as a filesystem for storing and moving vast amounts of large file scientific visualization data. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFA875.5070502(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Stan Hoeppner on 4 May 2010 01:40 Ron Johnson put forth on 5/3/2010 11:26 PM: > On 04/26/2010 03:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > [snip] >> If it took only 2 weeks for the bulk of this effort, I can't >> imagine they had to modify a ton of XFS code. IRIX was written in C >> as is >> Linux, so the changes in XFS were probably fairly minor. > > Windows is written in C, Linux is written in C. Thus, it should be > trivial to port Windows drivers to Linux? > > Obviously not. They had it up and running in a couple of weeks. A couple of weeks to me would seem to say they didn't have to modify a ton of code. Or, maybe they're just really efficient programmers. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. > Bottom line: just because two OSs are written in C doesn't mean that > (even if they are both Unix work-alikes) they have the same "guts" (data > structures, assumptions, etc). I made no such statements about the "guts" being the same or similar. I simply stated that because both the Linux kernel and XFS were written in C that the XFS code changes were probably fairly minor. They didn't rewrite it from the ground up. I've never found any documentation that details the changes and I don't have access to the original IRIX 6.5.x source code so I can't do a diff on the XFS code. I can only guess. And knowing what I do, I'm guessing I'm probably close to being on the money. >> I'd venture to guess that the most significant Linux XFS changes were >> those >> for the 32bit X86 code base. IRIX and thus XFS were born on 64bit >> MIPS RISC >> CPUs. > > I *know* that part of what you wrote is wrong, since SGI started using > MIPS chips in 1986 and the MIPS 4000 is from 1991. You are correct. IRIX predates XFS by half a decade. IRIX was developed and released on the 32bit MIPS CPUs, the 2xxx and 3xxx series. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX#History > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_IRIS_4D > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture#CPU_family > > XFS is from 1994, so it did have it's genesis on a 64-bit platform. And that's the only point I was making about the 32bit x86 work. Even if XFS wasn't originally developed on MIPS64 in 1992/93, the XFS code base in 2001 was fully 64 bit and had been for many many years. Porting IRIX from 64bit MIPS to 64bit Itanium and other 64bit arches such as Alpha was far less of an effort than "down" porting it to 32bit x86, which came some years later, IIRC. Such a project requires changing a ton of data structures from 8 bytes wide to 4 bytes wide. The down port to 32bit x86 and the porting to other architectures was, TTBOMK, required to get XFS into the mainline kernel. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFB151.4060909(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Stan Hoeppner on 4 May 2010 02:00 Stan Hoeppner put forth on 5/4/2010 12:32 AM: > 2001 was fully 64 bit and had been for many many years. Porting IRIX from > 64bit MIPS to 64bit Itanium and other 64bit arches such as Alpha was far Self correction. That should read, top right, "Porting XFS from" -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFB582.9040206(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Scarletdown on 4 May 2010 03:00
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss(a)iguanasuicide.net> wrote: > It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained in > the kernel Would that be due to the system's creator having current living conditions unconducive to helping maintain his creation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_reiser Or are there other reasons for the lack of maintenance of the reiserfs? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/l2n5cf6328d1005032355gafca63d7s609ac8c0fdf02993(a)mail.gmail.com |