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.