All GNU/Linux distributions I've touched (over a dozen) the past few years ship XFS.
In fact, SuSE has supported XFS in SuSE Enterprise Linux Server (SLES) since version 8, over 5 years before it was an add-on in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5.6 (tech preview in 5.3-5.5). At that time, Red Hat actually engaged SGI on XFS with a licensing agreement -- although not for the trademark (Red Hat called it "Scalable File System"), whereas most other distributors just shipped the upstream. That's also when Red Hat took over most of the work and commits. I cannot speak for SuSE AG (Novell at the time) though, so I don't know what their agreement was. Red Hat never supported btrfs in any RHEL product, and it was one of the longest term "tech preview" ever offered. Red Hat finally admitted it would not reach the level of mature it desired, and yanked a lot of engineering effort. As I mentioned, they have a new, userspace project now to integrate various, existing facilities in the kennel and other subsystems into an useful set of features that most customers have been requesting. - bjs P.S. It may also be related to how Oracle, who owns quite a number of copyrights on btrfs, have approached further development on btrfs as well. But I'm quite ignorant of those details. On Thursday, October 19, 2017, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19/10/2017 20:53, Bryan Smith wrote: > > On Thursday, October 19, 2017, Alan McKinnon <[email protected] > <javascript:;> > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>>> 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] <javascript:;> > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-examdev mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev -- -- 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
