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.
-- Stan