[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: file systems

On 5/1/2011 3:35 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Du, 01 mai 11, 02:34:59, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

[snip various super-stuff running xfs]

I understand that xfs is great for super-computers[1] and stuff, but how
is that relevant to a desktop computer with something like this?

The background info I provided relating to supers was in response to Shawn calling my statement of 'quality FS' an 'opinion'. If XFS isn't a quality FS people wouldn't have been using it on $100 million supercomputers for over 13 years. And in that 13 years it has seen vast improvements.

$ df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6             9.2G  7.3G  1.5G  84% /
tmpfs                1006M  4.0K 1006M   1% /lib/init/rw
udev                 1004M  548K 1004M   1% /dev
tmpfs                1006M     0 1006M   0% /dev/shm
tmpfs                1006M  164K 1006M   1% /tmp
/dev/sda7             9.2G  2.7G  6.1G  31% /media/stable
/dev/sda2              19G  9.9G  7.6G  57% /home
/dev/sda8             104G   79G   26G  76% /home/amp/big

(actually one of those partitions is on xfs, but that's not my point)

The only real downside to using XFS as a primary desktop filesystem is tool familiarity and knowledge. For the casual desktop user XFS may not be all that suitable due to this, but any power user will be more than happy with it. As with anything computer related, one needs to read and learn about it before taking the plunge. Users who simply select all the defaults during OS installation need not apply.

Regarding desktop suitability, all SGI MIPS graphics workstations from 1994 onward, including the popular O2 and Octane, used XFS. The CG effects in almost every movie between ~1995 and 2002 were created on SGI workstations all using XFS. ILM used SGI workstations with XFS from 1994/95 until switching to commodity AMD Opteron systems around 2003/04. I don't know what FS they currently use on their workstations today. Given the size of the data sets I'd bet they still use XFS locally, though I don't know if they use CXFS on their SAN or another cluster filesystem.


Reply to: