Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 at 7:03am, Johnny Hughes wrote
I would also not use XFS in production ... but that is just me. If XFS was production ready, it would be in RHEL. Since it is turned on in Fedora and since it is purposely turned off in RHEL, one can reasonably conclude that the upstream people DO NOT THINK it is stable enough to use in production on RHEL. This is JUST my opinion :D
IIRC, RH's stated reason (stated on the mailing lists in the midst of folks clamoring for XFS' inclusion) for not having XFS turned on in RHEL is *not* that it's not production ready. It's that they only have the resources (read: folks with knowledge in-depth enough to satisfy enterprise customers) to support 1 FS, and that's ext3.
indeed, when I looked into using XFS for a large scale data store, I had several XFS 'gurus' (freenode xfs channel) strongly recommend only deploying it with the help of SGI consulting services, using a SGI distribution. Since at the time, SGI's long term viability was dubious (and its not improved any since then, this was about 2 years ago), I moved on. We are currently using Solaris 10 plus ZFS for this application, with satisfactory results (except some annoying problems with marvel88SX sata drivers but thats another issue entirely)