[CentOS] Upgrade RedHat 9 to Fedora

[sudo Yang]

On 8/3/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> sudo Yang <sudoyang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We rely heavily on ReiserFS.  Unfortunately, RedHat
> > Enterprise and CentOS do not support it.
> 
> There's a reason for this and a reason why Fedora makes you
> run an installer-time option to enable it.
> 
> > We started out with RedHat 6.x then 7.1 which does not
> > support any journaling file system at all.
> 
> I was fairly certain that Ext3 shipped with Red Hat Linux 7,
> especially 7.1 which was kernel 2.4.  Ext3 went into the
> stock kernel as of 2.4.15.  Although ReiserFS went into the
> stock kernel as of 2.4.1, it was still missing serious
> features that Ext3 had.

ext3 wasn't supported in RH 7.1.  In fact, I don't think the
'--fstype' option existed for the KS file.
 
> > We had to add ReiserFS support ourselves, so I guess we
> > could do the same here.
> 
> Any reason you went ReiserFS?
> 
> Back in the kernel 2.2 era, even SuSE recommended I not
> deploy it, and go with VA Linux / Ext3 kernels instead.  I
> was glad that I did -- never a hiccup (although it was full
> data journaling back then).
> 
> > I know CentOS has an unsupported kernel that supports
> > ReiserFS, unfortunately it's not integrated into Anaconda
> > for automated kickstart installation.
> > Why ReiserFS, it's more convenient and we've found it to
> > work better with large file systems.
> 
> Actually, if you're working with large filesystems, XFS is a
> better solution IMHO.  It has had the best feature support
> history of any journaling filesystem, even over Ext3 in many
> cases.  The only issue XFS had was the lack of a lot of
> support code -- stuff that went in circa 2.5.3+, and is now
> standard in 2.6 (as well as backported to late 2.4).
> 
> I've been running XFS since Red Hat Linux 7.1.
> 
> > These features are extremely useful in ReiserFS: dynamic
> > inode creation,
> 
> XFS
> 
> > negligible time to create file system of any size,
> 
> XFS
> 
> > large file and filesystem support,
> 
> Oh, definitely XFS -- especially versus ReiserFS v3 at the
> time.
> 
> > no mandatory fsck (ext3 forces you to do this once in a
> > while, unless you remember to reset it before rebooting).
> 
> You can use "tune2fs -i 0" and "tune2fs -c -1" to turn it
> off, _permanently_.
> 
> > When ReiserFS 4 reaches maturity, we're planning to switch
> > to it (atomic operations, metadata journaling, ... nice :).
> 
> Did I mention XFS?  ;->
> 
> XFS was ported whole from Irix, true, full UNIX filesystem
> design that has been unchanged since 1994.  All major
> features were 100% compatible with Linux from day 1 -- NFS,
> Quotas, SELinux (when it was introduced later), etc..., as
> well as POSIX ACLs.
> 
> In fact, most of the general Virtual Filesystem (VFS) layer
> features that all filesystems benefit from (even if JFS and
> ReiserFS don't implement them yet) was thanx to SGI's
> contributions to 2.5's development.

This is very good info about XFS, so thanks for the info.  I know it
has made it into the standard kernel tree.  How's the development
effort on it as of late?  Wonder why RedHat chose not to support
anything else except for ext2 and ext3.

How stable are user-land tools for dealing with corrupted XFS
filesystems?  This is one area of ReiserFS that still needs a lot of
work.  We've been running ReiserFS in very active systems for the past
4+ years.  For the most part, it has been fairly good to us.  We've
lost  about 5 systems we could not recover using these tools
(sometimes these tools did more harm than good).
 
> --
> Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
> mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
> http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>