[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-xfs
Subject:    Re: XFS ready for primte time?
From:       Juan Casero <casero () bellsouth ! net>
Date:       2001-02-27 4:04:48
[Download RAW message or body]

Ok.  Thanks for the info.  I use XFS on my home systems (I got a home LAN
with some NFS mounting and a IP masquerading to the internet through a
xDSL modem) and it has worked exceedingly well so far.  For workstation use
I will go with XFS from here on out.  I will take your advice and set up some non
essential systems in the office with different file systems and give them each
a try.  I used ReiserFS briefly some months ago and while it seemed ok
I was not terribly excited about it.  At the time it was hard to find ReiserFS 
patches for the curent releases of the linux kernel so I finally just gave up
on ReiserFS and moved back to ext2.   This list and the active development
of XFS are what convinced me to try a JFS again.  So far I am very satisfied
with XFS.   


Thanks for the info.

Juan.


On Monday 26 February 2001 23:02, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Juan Casero wrote:
> > I have read the caveats posted on the SGI OSS web site regarding
> > XFS but I still want to get some opinions from the members on the
> > list (especially the developers) regarding the readiness of XFS
> > for some serious work ... <cut> ...  Currently all the systems use
> > ext2 file systems.  My questions is simple; how long before the XFS
> > developers feel it might be safe to put XFS to in an environment
> > like this?   Certainly the journaling features of XFS is the most
> > important thing we need but there is also the performace issue to
> > consider (I believe XFS is slightly faster than ext2) and the
> > maturity of the code.
>
> As a non-developer/sysadmin with about 9 months of Ext3 usage (6
> months on production fileservers), and a recent adopter of XFS
> (testing right now), I can offer the following pointers and advise:
>
> 1.  Personal testing and experience is the only way to find out if
> something is _right_for_you_.  Again, I tested Ext3 for 3 months on
> less important servers and workstations before adopting it on my
> heavily used workstations and main file servers.
>
> 2.  Your JFS options will be limited by your system application and
> kernel (even GLibC).  One JFS may work great for some applications
> (e.g., ReiserFS for Linux workstations), but be a total no-no on
> others (e.g., ReiserFS for Linux NFS fileservers).  And some JFS are
> kernel/GLibC-dependent (Ext3 is 2.2-only right now, and kernel 2.4 +
> GLibC 2.2 -- i.e. RedHat 7 -- is recommended for XFS).
>
> 3.  If you want my "'biased', 'quickie' breakdown" of the 4 major
> JFS for Linux -- they are as follows:
>
>    Tweedie@RedHat's Ext3 is remedially "evolutionary"
>    (fully reversable, it's Ext2 with journaling slapped on)
>
>    Namesys' ReiserFS is very "revolutionary" for Linux
>    (and hasn't been proven anywhere but on Linux, if that)
>
>    SGI's XFS is a port to Linux
>    (powerful, feature-rich yet still legacy UNIX compatible)
>
>    IBM's JFS seems to be no sparsely available?
>    (Possible IBM hardware/support-focused?)
>
> 4.  Performance is a non-issue for web servers IMHO
>
> Unless you have a fast connection, or a serious database back-end,
> your bottleneck is not going to be the filesystem, but the Internet
> connection.  I could be wrong, but I wouldn't worry about
> performance.
>
> With that said, XFS is the fastest of the four JFS in most apps, and
> Ext3 is just as fast as Ext2 for _reads_.  So its depends on how
> much disk I/O and static v. dynamic content you will have (or be
> generating in the case of the latter).
>
> 5.  Personal Experiences
>
> - NFS (and SMB) Fileservers with Linux 2.2 + Ext3 + NFS3
>
> I have production NFS fileservers, including Linux (which are also
> SMB fileservers via Samba).  As such ReiserFS is NOT an option (not
> even with the 2.4.x patches for kNFSd IMHO).  For kernel 2.2, I
> ended up adopting Ext3 (along with the NFS3 backport to 2.2) for a
> good, solid and reliable JFS.  I _always_ run in the V1 mode (full
> data journaling) instead of trying to use the newer meta-data-only
> modes.  That also means write performance is effectively _halfed_
> with Ext3 (for reads, Ext3 = Ext2).  [ It's definately NOT the
> performance route for fileservers! ]
>
> - Kernel 2.4 limits your options, but introduces XFS
>
> Now when it comes to kernel 2.4, Ext3 is finally getting ported by
> Tweedie (the man is bogged down with a crapload from my
> understanding -- and waited for the official 2.4.0 release before
> starting to address it, which is probably smart).  That leaves
> ReiserFS and XFS.  Unlike XFS, ReiserFS is also supported on kernel
> 2.2 (albeit somewhat limited in features though).
>
> - ReiserFS _may_ work for you
>
> Now you may be able to get away with ReiserFS.  It is designed to be
> dynamically self-upgrading (including from Ext2) which may be a
> nice, gradual way for you to upgrade over time (making lesser
> important partitions ReiserFS, and converting others to Ext2
> later).  Most of ReiserFS' issues (other than the fact that its a
> from-the-ground-up filesystem and relatively new compared to
> Ext2/Ext3 and XFS) is with NFS services.  If you aren't going to use
> kNFSd on your web servers (for sharing information between each
> other), then it might be a viable option.
>
> - XFS is the 2.4 "bomb" and its most feature rich/working on Linux
>
> On the other hand, XFS is here for kernel 2.4 and has the richest
> feature set, the most capabilities working _now_ in 2.4, and I have
> a bunch of XFS-enable kernel 2.4.2 and support RPMs "ready to plop
> down" on a stock RedHat 7.0 install (URL below).  As such, it might
> be _easiest_ to just setup a couple of test RedHat 7.0 + my XFS RPMs
> and run for a couple of months (FYI, I plan to release new XFS
> "snapshot" RPM releases from CVS every week or two) serving out your
> least critical stuff.
>
> - But only personal, first-hand testing will tell you
>
> Again, you need to test it yourself, in your environment, to see if
> it works for you.  After 3 months, you'll know if it works for you.
>
> -- TheBS

-- 
Juan Casero
casero@bellsouth.net

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]