OE mangled your message - it came through entirely as an attachment so it's
a little more awkward for me to reply, so I'm leaving your message intact at
the bottom. Might just be OE, but it's only a couple of people on the list
that this does it to me with... Looking at the e-mail on my imap server, it
came through as a MIME-formatted message. mutt complains about the pgp
signature. Oh well...
1. I agree that there is nothing wrong with offering CVS access. However,
the FAQ clearly suggests that if you want to install XFS, "the best way to
do this is to checkout the SGI XFS kernel from their CVS tree".
2. "[they offer] an ISO which you can use to install Red Hat Linux on XFS
filesystems." Let's be blunt here. If the ISO comes from SGI, it's not Red
Hat Linux. It's some distribution that may be based on Red Hat Linux
underneath, but it may or may not have critical patches applied that fix
security holes, fix bugs, enhance stability, whatever. It looks like SGI
may start with Red Hat kernel source rpms, so that's a good thing, but if a
new patch comes out for the kernel, you may be waiting an extra day or two
for it to make it to the XFS project.
3. This is a Red Hat list and I would assume that the average person on
this list is a Red Hat user. Replacing Red Hat's kernel with someone else's
is not something the average person should do lightly, and in fact, I would
suspect that the average person doesn't know how to even do this and
understand the risks involved.
4. I quoted the FAQ when I said that there was no installer for 7.2.
Obviously the FAQ is out of date.
5. When I said limited support backup tools, I knew that xfsdump existed.
How about tar? Will it backup and restore ACLs? What about commercial
backup utilities like netbackup? That's what I meant about limited support.
Sure, you can use the ONE utility that's provided, but you may be rewriting
your existing backup/restore scripts or be forced to scrap the commercial
tool you're already running.
6. You're welcome to disagree as to whether or not it's ready for the
average file server. Perhaps what you consider average is different from
mine. If you want a journalling file system that's not supported by your OS
supplier (Red Hat), has limited support for enterprise backup tools, forces
you to get updates from two different vendors, go for it. I'm not saying
XFS is bad or that it isn't right for you. If I have a colleague who wants
to install a file server at home, I'm sure not going to recommend an XFS
file system at this time (he probably doesn't need ACL support either). If
I want to run a production big-business file server at work that demands ACL
support, I personally wouln't run it there either in its current state, and
that's where we started this thread. Would you believe a vendor that said
that the software was stable? In my opinion, XFS just hasn't been out
long enough on Linux to prove long-term stability and vendor committment.
.../Ed
Ed Wilts
Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Messmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [REDHAT] Re: file server with linux
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 15:00, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 12:47:02PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> > Have you looked at XFS on Linux? Using Samba on XFS (or ext3 with ACLs)
> > should give you what you need:
> > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
> > http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/102_installer.html
>
> Start with the FAQ and you'll very quickly see that it's not ready for the
> average file server today. You'll see lots of references to starting with
the
> cvs version,
Yes, they offer access to CVS. Nothing wrong with that. They also make
available kernel RPM packages for Red Hat Linux, and offer an ISO which
you can use to install Red Hat Linux on XFS filesystems.
>From the FAQ:
Q: How stable is XFS?
It is stable and being used in production systems on a large range of
hardware. From small systems to big multiprocessing systems with
gigabytes of ram..
While Red Hat might not support XFS yet, I would disagree with the
statement that "it's not ready for the average file server today"
> explanations as to why there is no support in a standard kernel,
It touches a lot of the kernel and wasn't 1.0 early enough to make it
into 2.3. Linus has declared XFS 2.5 material. That doesn't mean that
it's not stable, just that they don't want large portions of the kernel
in the stable tree.
> no RHL 7.2 installer (it's in the works)
Yes there is.
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/Release-1.0.2/installer/i386/
> , limited support in backup tools, etc.
xfsdump exists, and is the standard tool for backing up XFS partitions
in IRIX as well.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
