Dave Airlie wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:38 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:32:30 -0500
>> Dan Yocum <yocum(a)fnal.gov> wrote:
>>> It's stable, widely tested, widely deployed, and
>>> it's being actively developed and maintained (which is more than can
>>> be said of some other filesystems that remain in the default list).
>>> It's in the kernel, it shouldn't be "hidden" in the depths
>>> anaconda anymore.
>> How's the SELinux support these days? And why can't I boot from xfs
> Not addressing either of these questions directly, but with regard to
> overall quality of xfs in F8... I ran the xfsqa test suite on
> 2.6.23-0.71.rc2.fc8 over the weekend. Of the "auto" test group (those
> expected to pass reliably), 90 of 93 tests passed (this after fixing a
> quota bug I found & fixed over the weekend). Of the 3 failures, 2 are
> "harmless" - i.e. no data corruption, security issues, or anything like
> that - one is a bleeding-edge allocator feature not working quite 100%,
> another has to do with slightly different log traffic pattern due to a
> recent change w.r.t. the expected output.
> The "real" failure has to do with mmap writes into preallocated space;
> I'll look into that as I have time.
FWIW that turned out to be a non-error as well, test assumed 16k pages.
Don't we ship Fedora with 4K stacks, so I've heard XFS + RAID
overflow the stack..
so it may not be the stable..
I'll test on x86 over lvm some evening or next weekend. It is a
concern. My x86 mythbox is perfectly happy on FC6, though, running xfs
on plain partitions (no lvm).