XFS file system
M Daniel R M
4.mdr.magarzo at gmail.com
Mon Dec 26 17:11:18 UTC 2005
El lun, 26-12-2005 a las 12:03 -0400, George N. White III escribió:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, don fisher wrote:
>
> > I can determine that the XFS file system is supported. But it does not appear
> > to be mainstream (e.g. no mkfs.xfs etc). Abut two years ago it was used for
> > large (>4TB) and fast file systems.
>
> And is still used for things like numerical simulations, rendering, and
> remote sensing invlving terrabyte's of data where downtime is expensive
> and thruput is important. XFS tries to ensure that the filesystem is
> always consistent, so rebooting a huge after a crash does not require
> running fsck for days before the system can be used.
>
> > What is the current status of XFS. Most all of the documentation I have been
> > able to locate date from the last century.
>
> Maybe you were looking at docs on RH systems. There is an active mailing
> list. SGI (who still support XFS as an open source project) has begun
> using SUSE on their Itanium machines, so XFS is certainly being used by
> the people who really need it.
>
> There can be problems with XFS, especially if you get into edgy
> workloads/hardware configurations, on 32-bit Intel (depending on the
> devices) with the 4-k stacks on RH. Most people who really need XFS will
> be using 64-bit processors. Some people have been running XFS on 32-bit
> hardware in FC[34] without problems, but I suspect they have been lucky
> with the workloads and hardware.
>
> --
> George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
>
I'm been following this thread with some interest, now just to
contribute a single fact more: end-user i80x86 32-bit system, 7 months
fc4 running, 7 months running xfs partitions, but only in the /mnt
branch, as huge, extended partitions; p2p and multimedia use, so file
sizes are, in general, of hundreds of MB minimum; No one problem there.
Great. Efficiency, in two words...
Regards
More information about the users
mailing list