Yumyum. Ill cough out something.
linux may be ahead in performance but not in filesystem. What advanced feature of the filesystem that linux is advanced of? having more filesystems that all do the same thing with varying degress of data loss and corruption? that's not advancement for me. and for speed, not all cases linux is beyond. i've tested this both on NetBSD (without softupdates) and gentoo linux (ext3) on the same machine. $ time tar xzf $ time cp -R my-large-collection my-large-collection-2 Result: NetBSD: 11.22s - 29.41s linux: 18.32s - 38.42s you are welcome to test it too. linux has many filesystem, none of them actually appear to be stable, especially during very heavy loads. bsd doesn't want many filesystems that all do the same thing, only with different sets of problems. and looking at the changelog, http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/ChangeLog-2.6.17-rc4 [XFS] Fix a possible metadata buffer (AGFL) refcount leak when fixing an AG freelist [XFS] Fix a project quota space accounting leak on rename. [XFS] Fix a possible forced shutdown due to mishandling write barriers with remount,ro http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/ChangeLog-2.6.17-rc6 [PATCH] ext3 resize: fix double unlock_super() so this is what you called stable? xfs is a bad example of filesystem that linux happily supports. it's made for performance, not data integrity. i don't believe in benchmarks either, i want to prove it by myself. fefe's benchmark is one example of such tests. heck, he even asked the openbsd mailing list on "how to fine-tune openbsd" AFTER publishing the benchmark. he benchmarked a system he really doesn't know. ;) *grin* On 2/6/07, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 17:30 +0800, Happy Kamote Foundation wrote: > > 4. Linux has a cornucopia of filesystems supported. Linux, like > > proprietary Unix variants, have supported journaling filesystems for a > > very long time. > > IMHO Linux have yet to have a stable filesystem. I think this is just flame bait... <fanning the flames>anything that still needs a full fsck to recover from a crash is no stable filesystem for me.</fanning the flames> Kidding aside, soft updates is still a young concept (McKusick's paper on it was released in 2000, with a FreeBSD implementation merged in 2002) which has been into BSD UFS for the last four years. Journalling on the other hand, has been in Unix implementations for a very long time already, and has already proven its worth regarding stability. The likes of ext3, XFS and JFS have been in Linux for roughly the same amount of time, with the latter two being in commercial Unix for an even longer period of time. We all do know of the disadvantages of FS journals though ... which soft updates aimed to skirt around. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
