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)