XFS Merged into Linux 2.4

Alphix writes "As noted on KernelTrap Marcelo has merged XFS into 2.4 after a code review by Christoph Hellwig. The mail from Marcelo on LKML is here. Apparently it touched very little VFS code so people not using XFS shouldn't see any ill effects from this (it's even supposed to fix some VFS bugs). XFS is described by SGI as '...a journalling filesystem developed by SGI and used in SGI's IRIX operating system. It is now also available under GPL for linux. It is extremely scalable, using btrees extensively to support large and/or sparse files, and extremely large directories. The journalling capability means no more waiting for fsck's or worrying about meta-data corruption.' Let the stability vs. new-features flamewar begin."

Comments

Re:Careful with LILO

[mark_lybarger]

LILO? dude, that's like, so 199^N^N^N^ er, debianish. that bacon's done moved over ages ago.

Why so much fuss over JFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering, why does everyone get so excited about journaling filesystems? Many distros default to ext3/reiserfs now for even home boxes, but it's like a big band-aid.

If your box is crashing enough to make fscking a chore, you already have bigger problems. Sure, I can see where JFSs are sometimes useful, but on dekstops and most other machines the better-performing ext2 is a much more appropriate choice.

Re:ext3vs XFS?

[Merlin42]

in response to:
http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems/
Thi s seems like a pretty poorly designed benchmark. One of the major tests was copying b/w two partitions (which is a valid test), but they put both partitions on the same disk! Whichever partition hapened to be allocated near the outside edge of the disk would have a clear advantage. Also it is not clear if the read, write, and delete portions of the test were done using the exact same partition or if some filesystems were handicapped by being on the inside partition when others got the outside partition.