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