Re: Opinions XFS
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:55:28AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >I'd have to modify that. Instead of NIH, my worry is that since XFS
> >was designed for a different kernel, it's been "shimmed" into Linux
> >and so doesn't integrate as well as ext2/3 and ReiserFS. Same
> >concern with jfs.
> I suppose that's a valid concern, but in the absence of any evidence
> of problems caused by it I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep. :)
Given that SGI boxes now use Linux and have dropped Irix but still use
XFS, I think it pretty likely that they have done a good job of ensuring
that Linux's XFS is up to snuff.
IBM started JFS version 1 with AIX, then ported it to OS/2 and added
features to make it version 2, then ported it back to AIX where it is
the standard FS. They got Linux working on their newer Power servers to
meet customer demand and ported JFS to linux so that they had a common
filesystem irrespective of OS.
In both cases, the porting was done or directed by the origionator of the
filesystem for reasons that impact their bottom line. To some extent
their reputations are on the line with their filesystems. As they are
right now, I would trust them both equally well. They each have their
stronger points that make one more suitable than the other for certain
uses of the filesystem.