[CentOS] XFS and CentOS 4.3
Joshua Baker-LePain
jlb17 at duke.edu
Tue Aug 15 13:15:33 UTC 2006
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 at 4:18am, Johnny Hughes wrote
> Personally, I would not use xfs on Linux ... maybe take a look here:
Almost every time I've tested performance for my workload of interest, XFS
kicks the $#@)$ out of ext3 -- we're talking more than 2X write
performance on the same hardware. And every time I point out how poorly
ext3 performs (either on the RH lists or the ext3 list) I get ignored or
told it's my hardware (despite also providing the XFS numbers proving it's
not the hardware).
And I won't even go into xfsdump vs. ext2/3 dump.
> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060814
>
> And see what several debain devel's say about XFS.
Yes, there was a bad bug with XFS recently. It's fixed now. It happens.
> RedHat says it is not stable enough to use in RHEL.
I've never completely understood RH's opposition to XFS. I've heard
several stories -- the 4K stacks issue (which is a long way towards being
resolved in recent kernels), support issues, etc. I almost wonder if it
isn't a case of NIH.
> I don't think everyone can be wrong.
To add one more anecdotal data point, I've used XFS since RH7.3 (using
pre 1.0 releases from SGI) and never lost *any* data to it. Transitioning
to ext3 (to stay with officially supported kernels) was *painful* --
performance plummeted, and it forced me to rework many of my servers.
> If you really want to use it, you can use the module you referenced
> above and our kernel. The standard RHEL kernel will not compile w/
> anything except 4k stacks (that is how the CentOS kernel is released
> too) ... so if you want to do that, you'll need to figure it out.
Also (to the OP) keep in mind that x86_64 still uses 8K stacks.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
More information about the CentOS
mailing list