| 1 |
> Hmm.. I haven't heard any success stories; yet. Anyone care to post |
| 2 |
> experiences? Anyway, 2.5.x has a lot of nice additions that we enjoy as |
| 3 |
> 2.4 backport patches in gentoo-sources, but this XFS buisness is |
| 4 |
> dissapointing. I would jump to 2.5.x right now and start testing/helping |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
As has been mentioned about 1 dozen times before, patching XFS against 2.4 |
| 7 |
is not a job for the weak of heart. When I first got put in charge of |
| 8 |
managing the releases of gentoo-sources, drobbins and I agreed to drop XFS |
| 9 |
and to maintain it separately in xfs-sources, because that way we could |
| 10 |
offer a more complete and feature rich kernel for gentoo-sources. I have |
| 11 |
been working hard and so has MJC in order to get XFS back into |
| 12 |
gentoo-sources since there is obvious demand for it, that is why it is |
| 13 |
there as an experimental option for gentoo-sources-2.4.19-r10. The kernel |
| 14 |
that we are currently working on will hopefully have a better tested and |
| 15 |
better integrated XFS patch, borrowed from andrea archangeli's kernel. |
| 16 |
Speaking of which, we have available for your testing and XFS pleasure in |
| 17 |
the portage tree "aa-sources" which may work for you. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> for a speedy 2.6 release, but nVidia's binary drivers are for 2.4 only |
| 20 |
> and haven't been usable patched (what could be patched) since |
| 21 |
> 2.5.24-dj2. This means that nVidia/XFS users are stuck playing patch |
| 22 |
> limbo. Does anyone have any helpful sollutions? What changes are going |
| 23 |
> to be made in regard to XFS for the next gentoo-sources kernel |
| 24 |
> (2.4.19-r10 w/ use="xfs" will *not* boot for me at all, and |
| 25 |
> 2.4.19-xfs-r2 is not stable enough for my tastes). |
| 26 |
> I would start over with ReiserFS, but I *prefer *XFS and have not |
| 27 |
> had problems with a custom 2.4.18 kernel with *lots* of patches. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
In my experience, xfs-sources-2.4.19-r2 is one of the most stable kernels |
| 30 |
I've ever used and I do mean ever. Of course you seem to have a different |
| 31 |
experience there. Now this is where we hit a highly opinionated brick |
| 32 |
wall. carpaski@g.o and I have been using reiserfs on production |
| 33 |
grade machines all over our school for close to a year now (this includes |
| 34 |
the time when reiser was considered 'unstable') and I won't use anything |
| 35 |
else in a production environment any more, because reiser has proven |
| 36 |
itself through kernel crash after kernel crash and school power outage |
| 37 |
after power outage. The big difference in the kernel world between these |
| 38 |
two filesystems is that reiser works and plays well with the data |
| 39 |
structures present in 2.4 and XFS doesn't, plain and simple. This makes |
| 40 |
the XFS patch, as I've mentioned before, require modifying tens of |
| 41 |
thousands of lines of kernel core code where other filesystems such as JFS |
| 42 |
or Reiserfs only needed to modify a few hundred (even to include quota and |
| 43 |
other features I believe reiser still modifys less than 2000 lines of core |
| 44 |
code). |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
The translation of all this is as follows: Until you are going to do the |
| 47 |
work to patch XFS into a kernel for us, don't whine too much, we're doing |
| 48 |
our best to get it in, but it tends to destablalize things WAY too much |
| 49 |
for us to make it standard. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
--Brandon (This is the last time I will comment about XFS on the lists |
| 52 |
until someone brings up something new, because I've said everything I just |
| 53 |
said above several times before) |
Archives