[CentOS] A questiong about replacing my failing drive

Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org
Tue Jun 14 20:17:13 UTC 2005


On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:10:50PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> > The canonical reasons I've heard are 1) they don't want to spend the 
> > money/time/resources to acquire enough XFS expertise to support it at the 
> > Enterprise level
> I could think of 2 guys they could easily snatch away from SGI that could
> bring such experience -- pretty much the 2 behind much of the VFS in
> kernel 2.6 anyway (so great resources regardless).

The main argument I can see is "clean upgrade path". XFS doesn't offer
anything hugely compelling over ext3 -- which is, after all, very flexible
and extensible. And Red Hat already *has* Stephen Tweedie.


> Feature-wise, probably not.  The VFS in 2.6 brings a lot of former XFS-only
> features to _all_ filesystems.  But I still see serious size limitations as
> well as scalability to Ext3 versus XFS.

Serious in some cases; not in the general case. Given the above, there has
to be something *widespread* that ext3 just *can't* do.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 81 degrees Fahrenheit.



More information about the CentOS mailing list