Its called XFS, its produced by SGI and its been around for linux for years now. And its in the 2.5.x series natively, with an sgi supported 2.4 backport.
Re:Why I haven't migrated to the 2.4 kernel
on
Linux 2.4.16 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And this is why the 2.4 kernel has had such a rough time. Please see the post on the linux kernel mailing list that has message id Pine.LNX.4.33.0111251946400.9764-100000@penguin.tr ansmeta.com
In it, Linus clearly states what the problem is with any major release... The people you really want to test it won't test it when its development.
The number of people testing a development release is sadly too small to catch some of the problems. The same is true in a lesser degree to -pre releases in regards to the final releases.
At any rate, if you really want to help, setup a test box and test the development releases and provide useful feedback, then the time to a really stable release will decrease.
One of the big plusses that XFS has over Reiser and ext3 is that it is time tested. It has been used on IRIX machines for a long time and is rock
solid on those platforms, its been running under linux for a long time in a beta stage and now SGI
appears to believe that its as robust and useable in production environments.
So what is one of its strongest strengths over the other journaling fs's?
It doesn't really matter whether they use *BSD or Linux except for a personal choice at this point. Both are very robust, and all the concepts they talk about apply to both OS's. In addition, most if not all the software they mentioned in the presentations will run flawlessly on either OS.
However, I do believe their slide about 900+ day uptimes is slightly innacurate/out of date. Its pretty easy with good hardware to get either Linux or *BSD to stay up 900+ days, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to. Its very rare in a 2-3 year time period that a machine won't need to be brought down and updated due to some vulnerability. *BSD is not immune to vulnerabilities and neither is Linux. So keeping a machine up for 900+ days just seems rather foolish.
SQL stands for Structured Query Language. Its basically a standard way of querying databases. MySQL is a database that supports a large set of the SQL commands.
For more information, take a look at their webpage
The first thing that needs to be clarified for this article is that it is talking about non-WAP, non airport wireless.
What it is talking about is direct competition wireless to DSL and cable, something in the order of anywhere from 256k/s to over 11 mbps/sec for laptop/desktop/corporate lan.
After looking into this, there were a couple reasons we found that were not favorable.
1) Line of sight. Most of the high speed wireless internet equipment on the market today uses the ISM unlicensed 2.4 Ghz range and spread spectrum. The biggest drawback to using such a high frequency is that it is pretty much line of sight. If you can't see the transmitter, you're likely to not be able to get service.
Water is also another factor, trees in the way? The water in them obscures the signal. Snow on the dish? Plan on an outage. These two points come after many hours of reading mailing lists and from word of mouth of another ISP in the area that is now doing wireless and experiencing daily outages measured in hours.
2) Location
We are in the midwest. Its flat out here and to get any height on a antenna you have to erect and maintain huge expensive towers. There have been several wireless sucess stories, most of them coming from mountainous areas where the ISP places the transmitter on a mountain and serves people in the valley. This work very well. However in the midwest, without a lot of height, you find that there are shadows in any major metropolitan area (regions where the signal just will not reach due to obstruction)
Those are the reasons why we decided against a wireless implementation at this time. Hopefully solutions will present themselves in the future that address these issues.
Slashdot Mirror
While you're at it, how about porting slash to work with apache2 and mod_perl2.
Apache2 is here, and it is getting to be the new standard, mod_perl2 is to a point where it is useable without too much risk.
Its called XFS, its produced by SGI and its been around for linux for years now. And its in the 2.5.x series natively, with an sgi supported 2.4 backport.
And this is why the 2.4 kernel has had such a rough time. Please see the post on the linux kernel mailing list that has message id Pine.LNX.4.33.0111251946400.9764-100000@penguin.tr ansmeta.com
In it, Linus clearly states what the problem is with any major release... The people you really want to test it won't test it when its development.
The number of people testing a development release is sadly too small to catch some of the problems. The same is true in a lesser degree to -pre releases in regards to the final releases.
At any rate, if you really want to help, setup a test box and test the development releases and provide useful feedback, then the time to a really stable release will decrease.
So what is one of its strongest strengths over the other journaling fs's?
Time tested reliability.
However, I do believe their slide about 900+ day uptimes is slightly innacurate/out of date. Its pretty easy with good hardware to get either Linux or *BSD to stay up 900+ days, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to. Its very rare in a 2-3 year time period that a machine won't need to be brought down and updated due to some vulnerability. *BSD is not immune to vulnerabilities and neither is Linux. So keeping a machine up for 900+ days just seems rather foolish.
SQL stands for Structured Query Language. Its basically a standard way of querying databases. MySQL is a database that supports a large set of the SQL commands. For more information, take a look at their webpage
The first thing that needs to be clarified for this article is that it is talking about non-WAP, non airport wireless. What it is talking about is direct competition wireless to DSL and cable, something in the order of anywhere from 256k/s to over 11 mbps/sec for laptop/desktop/corporate lan. After looking into this, there were a couple reasons we found that were not favorable. 1) Line of sight. Most of the high speed wireless internet equipment on the market today uses the ISM unlicensed 2.4 Ghz range and spread spectrum. The biggest drawback to using such a high frequency is that it is pretty much line of sight. If you can't see the transmitter, you're likely to not be able to get service. Water is also another factor, trees in the way? The water in them obscures the signal. Snow on the dish? Plan on an outage. These two points come after many hours of reading mailing lists and from word of mouth of another ISP in the area that is now doing wireless and experiencing daily outages measured in hours. 2) Location We are in the midwest. Its flat out here and to get any height on a antenna you have to erect and maintain huge expensive towers. There have been several wireless sucess stories, most of them coming from mountainous areas where the ISP places the transmitter on a mountain and serves people in the valley. This work very well. However in the midwest, without a lot of height, you find that there are shadows in any major metropolitan area (regions where the signal just will not reach due to obstruction) Those are the reasons why we decided against a wireless implementation at this time. Hopefully solutions will present themselves in the future that address these issues.