On Thursday, October 19, 2017, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19/10/2017 01:12, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > >> I'm not sure I agree that xfs is worth a mention. If you need what it > >> can do, it's awesome, but it always seemed to me a specialized fs > >> outside of the normal and routine. Or maybe I just move in the wrong > >> circles. > > These days, XFS is a Red Hat thing in the way that btrfs is a SUSE > thing. I > > suppose that if you're running with Red Hat people, XFS will be more > important > > than btrfs and vice-versa. > > > Lemme check something. By XFS, do we mean the very aggressively cached > filesystem with a long history originally developed by SGI for IRIX? Or > something else? The Linux/x86-64 implementation of XFS by SGI did not include many facilities, including DMAPI and hardware integration with NVRAM, like Irix/MIPS64 was known for. There were also many things changed in the early codebases. E.g., SGI's XFS pre-1.0 release (circa 2001) was known for being unreliable with /var file systems. I ran into this myself, and it was corrected. Red Hat did not adopt XFS until 2009, and only as an add-on, not the default. Red Hat also employeed several, former SGI developers since. Red Hat changed to XFS being the default mid-3.0 series kernel releases by 2014. So it is the default in RHEL7+ for local file systems. - bjs -- -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
