Re: file systems
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 05/01/2011 04:34 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> That 'opinion' is based, in part, on the following facts, many of
>> which are in my previous posts to this list. If you would like, to
>> avoid expressing 'opinion' in the future, I could simply paste the
>> following huge ass text into every email dealing with XFS, instead of
>> using short hand subjective phrases such as 'XFS is the overall best
>> Linux FS'. The following, and additional evidence freely available,
>> demonstrates this 'opinion' to be fact.
>> All four US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) labs:
>> LANL, LLNL, Oak Ridge, and Sandia, as well as NASA Ames and the US Air
>> Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, have all used, or still
>> use, XFS and/or CXFS on large scale storage, dozens of petabytes of
>> XFS disk total.
this isn't an ipse dixit, eduardo.
stan is not arguing xfs should be used because NNSA uses it. he is simply
demonstrating that there are reputable organizations who use xfs. this
fact provides evidence in support of the accolades bestowed on the
fs. it doesn't make the fs 'right' and neither is the argument presented
that it is 'right'.
>> NASA Ames has been using XFS for 16+ years, and still do, on the
>> 10,240 processor (originally) Columbia super and the archival
>> servers. They're currently running an 800TB CXFS filesystem on SAN
>> storage, and local XFS filesystems on 215TB, 175TB, and 65TB direct
>> fiber attached storage.
neither is this an argumentum ad antiquitatem. again all that is being
shown is that xfs has a long history of use again with a reputable
organization. again, it is merely supporting evidence and it is not
being argued that because the organization has used this for x years, it
should necessary continuous to do so because of this fact.