Re: C.P.U. suggestions.
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Karl Schmidt wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
I had great success with JFS except that I switch away from it when told
by the maintainer that IBM didn't recommend using it anymore.
Could that be that they want you to use something they make that you have
to pay for? IBM isn't supporting it, but it is supported by the kernel team
- battle hardened and completely stable. I've had less trouble with jfs
than ext3.
No. The email is in the debian-user archives. It was in one of those
"which fs is best" threads that come up from time to time. In the midst
of that thread, I received a private email from the jfsutils maintainer
who forwarded me an email he received from the one person IBM has
remaining to support JFS in Linux. IBM has cut the team from a few
full-time to one half-time assignment. It is IBM's official position
that they don't recommend JFS on Linux for new projects. Note that the
kernel team aren't the ones who have to maintain the tools, and its the
tools that have to do the fscking.
OK - IBM only has one person supporting a reliable, well tested, and quite mature file system -
sounds Ok to me. (I don't really care what IBMs 'official' position is). It would be nice if IBM was
advancing the jfs, but because it is GPL, it isn't that important if IBM supports it or not. In
fact, looking at the names of the authors of the current package, it appears that many working on it
are not from IBM.
Again, some bean counter in IBM might see jfs as competition to products that they sell (they get
money for jfs2) or you may be getting fud for some fan-boy of an other fs.
There is no such thing as a 'best' fs - they all have trade offs. (see
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html) That being said, if stability is an issue, I've found jfs
to be the best all around fs for Linux use - as of today. There are new FS that can out-preform jfs
in specific tasks, but as my first pick fs I'm not interested in using a bleeding edge fs.
The latest version of jfs 1.1.12 was released August 2007. The project is hosted at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jfs/ and is listed as Production/Stable - not as depreciated.
It is actively supported to fix bugs dealing with new kernels.
Someone on a mailing list dumping some fud on jfs does not make it a poor choice. There may come a
day when the lack of active development leaves jfs a poor choice, as other fs become battle hardened
and offer better all around performance (ext4?). I would also read between the lines of the FUD,
and wonder if they have a reason to grind this particular ax? There are people that will profit (in
$$ and other ways) if a particular fs catches on over others. Fine tune your BS filter.
The only problem I had with JFS was what I have with all
metadata-journal-only: I don't have a UPS and some files would go
missing.
?? simply turn on autosave in your application.. or dig through /tmp (there are ways to preserve
files there on start-up).
Doug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schmidt EMail Karl@xtronics.com
Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://xtronics.com
3209 West 9th Street Ph (785) 841-3089
Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX (785) 841-0434
Life does not consist mainly, or even largely, of facts and
happenings. It consists mainly of the storm of thought that is
forever flowing through one's head.--Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: