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: Stan Hoeppner on 26 Apr 2010 02:30 Kevin Ross put forth on 4/24/2010 9:46 PM: > So if Btrfs were more mature, or if ZFS were included in the kernel, I'd > recommend either of those. But as it is, I think JFS is the way to go. Except for the fact that JFS has almost zero development and/or bug fix activity these days. The project appears idle: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=jfs-commit XFS on the other hand enjoys serious, sustained, active development: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates XFS has been very mature, stable, and performant for many years, and continues to become even better little by little. I'm on the mailing list and I see dozens of patches submitted _per day_. There's nothing inherently wrong with JFS, but if it's not being maintained/developed why use it? All the principals are IBM employees, and they're doing no work on it. On top of that, they aren't allowing outside developers. The JFS project is pretty much dying on the vine for all practical purposes. The stale code will linger on in the kernel until IBM abandons it or the project allows in developers who really want to work on it. I'm guessing that Linus will boot it from the tree after it lingers without substantial changes for a few years. -- 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/4BD5327C.4080608(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Stan Hoeppner on 26 Apr 2010 03:20 Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM: > (Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS > will be, too, probably.) Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You apparently need a history lesson. XFS went into production systems starting in 1993 on SGI's Indy workstations. XFS was GPL'd by SGI in 2000, and was in Linux mainline just before EXT3, since mid 2001 in kernel 2.4. It was used almost exclusively on the IA64 Altix machines. It took a while before non SGI customers starting trying out XFS on i386 hardware. EXT3 arrived in mainline in Nov 2001, a few months _after_ XFS. Both have been in the mainline kernel for almost 9 years. You talk as if XFS is somehow "new" to Linux lol. I'd guess that XFS has been in mainline longer than many subscribers to this list have been using Linux. I'd also guess that XFS seems "new" to a lot of people because it's never been the default filesystem for any major Linux distro on i386/AMD64. Lack of "exposure" to something doesn't mean it's "new". XFS has had just as much development support in Linux as EXT3/4 have, possibly more in some areas. It predates all Linux filesystems with the exception of the original EXT. XFS has been in production systems since 1993, less than a year after Linus announced his very first Linux code was available for download via ftp, when he was still in college. That's 17 years ago! EXT3 is young, and EXT4 is an infant compared to XFS. XFS is older than EXT2 and older than many Linux users. Did I forget to mention that XFS is pretty old? 17 years old. And that it's fully supported by the kernel community? I'm not sure what you mean by "supported by GNU". XFS is compiled by the GNU tool chain just like everything else in Linux is. It's released under the GNU GPL. It's available and fully supported under Debian/GNU Linux. I should know, because that's what I run on my servers, with XFS. -- 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/4BD53D53.9050205(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Ron Johnson on 26 Apr 2010 03:40 On 04/26/2010 02:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM: > >> (Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS >> will be, too, probably.) > > Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You > apparently need a history lesson. > > XFS went into production systems starting in 1993 on SGI's Indy > workstations. XFS was GPL'd by SGI in 2000, and was in Linux mainline just > before EXT3, since mid 2001 in kernel 2.4. It was used almost exclusively > on the IA64 Altix machines. It took a while before non SGI customers > starting trying out XFS on i386 hardware. [snip] They couldn't have directly take the Irix code and brought it directly to Linux. It just wouldn't work, and Linus wouldn't allow such shimmed code into the mainline. So, while there's an XFS which is 17 years old, the Linux xfs code is "only" 9-10 years old. -- 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/4BD542D0.2070400(a)cox.net
From: Stan Hoeppner on 26 Apr 2010 03:50 Mike Castle put forth on 4/25/2010 10:29 AM: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, B. Alexander <storm16(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and cons >> of the various filesystems? > > Google is switching (has switched by now?) all of it's servers over to > ext4. A web search will turn up more details on the subject. But > they are mostly lots of big files. If it weren't for the live migration requirement, I read this to say that Google would be using XFS due to its superior performance: "In a mailing list post, Google engineer Michael Rubin provided more insight into the decision-making process that led the company to adopt Ext4. The filesystem offered significant performance advantages over Ext2 _and nearly rivaled the high-performance XFS filesystem_ during the company's tests. Ext4 was ultimately chosen over XFS because it would allow Google to do a live in-place upgrade of its existing Ext2 filesystems." -- 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/4BD54389.1030604(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Mark Allums on 26 Apr 2010 04:10
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM: > >> (Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS >> will be, too, probably.) > > Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You > apparently need a history lesson. No, XFS is not well-supported. Sorry, it's not. If you need rescuing. you are up that famous creek without any means of propulsion. A 40-year veteran would recover. A Freshman would say "screw it", and reformat. To ext3. MAA -- 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/4BD549C2.7000906(a)allums.com |