Heads up: e2fsprogs-1.42-WIP-0702 pushed to rawhide
rwheeler at redhat.com
Wed Oct 5 11:04:45 UTC 2011
On 10/05/2011 04:01 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>>> XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all.
>>>>> the why rh do NOT support it in 32 bit? there're still system that
>>>>> should have to run on 32 bit:-(
>>>> 32-bit machines have a 32-bit index into the page cache; on x86, that limits
>>>> us to 16T for XFS, as well. So 32-bit is really not that interesting for
>>>> large filesystem use.
>>>> If you need really scalable filesystems, I'd suggest a 64-bit machine.
>>> i mean if you support xfs and think it's better then ext4 why not
>>> support it on rhel 32bit?
>> This is a question you should direct through Red Hat's support
> i'm just like to ask Erik's opinion (who seems to be the fs people at rh:-)
Eric is our technical lead for file system and works in the broader file system
What Red Hat supports is determined by lots of things - some of them technical,
some of them practical.
Practically, we try to focus our testing and resources on the most common
platforms for enterprise users. 32 bit is not that common and certainly not a
reasonable choice for large file systems. Most new enterprise class servers are
64 bit these days and have been for years.
I can say that as Eric's manager if that helps :)
Just to be clear, this is a *Fedora* list, not a Red Hat or RHEL list, so what
considerations we as a community make about what is supported in fedora are
different. In Fedora, we do worry more about supporting legacy platforms so 32
bit support will go on longer. We still do have concerns about getting
sufficient testing/qa resources to validate each platform.
More information about the devel