On 19/10/2017 20:53, Bryan Smith wrote: > On Thursday, October 19, 2017, Alan McKinnon <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
Thanks Bryan. I'm obviously way out of date with what RedHat is doing in past years. In truth I haven't used it for ages, the only two Red Hat servers or clones I have are both appliances... -- Alan McKinnon [email protected] _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
