On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 09:22:13AM -0500, Steve Best wrote:
> June 28, 2001:
>
> IBM is pleased to announce the v 1.0.0 release of the open source
> Journaled File System (JFS), a high-performance, and scalable file
> system for Linux.
Great!
I remember that awhile ago there were some case
Hi,
first of all congratulations for finishing the initial first release.
Some questions, just out of curiosity:
>* Fast recovery after a system crash or power outage
>
>* Journaling for file system integrity
>
>* Journaling of meta-data only
>
does this mean JSF/Linux always journals
Hi,
first of all congratulations for finishing the initial first release.
Some questions, just out of curiosity:
* Fast recovery after a system crash or power outage
* Journaling for file system integrity
* Journaling of meta-data only
does this mean JSF/Linux always journals only the
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 09:22:13AM -0500, Steve Best wrote:
June 28, 2001:
IBM is pleased to announce the v 1.0.0 release of the open source
Journaled File System (JFS), a high-performance, and scalable file
system for Linux.
Great!
I remember that awhile ago there were some case issues
Steve Lord wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>
>>So I only hope that the smart guys at SGI find a way to prepare the
>>patches the way Linus loves because now the file
>>"patch-2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1-core" (which contains the modifs to the kernel
>>and not the new files) is about 174090 bytes which is a lot.
>>
>>YA
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, james rich wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Luigi Genoni wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
> >
> > > So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
> > > for instance), and even if it is less robust (I don't know if it is, I
>
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Luigi Genoni wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
>
> > So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
> > for instance), and even if it is less robust (I don't know if it is, I
> It is not less complete nor less robust, it's a
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
> Hi,
> From what I understand from Linus's mail to lkml, there is a difference
> between JFS and XFS:
> JFS doesn't require any modifications to existing code, its only an
> addition.
> XFS on the contrary is far more intrusive.
> So it seems
> Hi,
> So I only hope that the smart guys at SGI find a way to prepare the
> patches the way Linus loves because now the file
> "patch-2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1-core" (which contains the modifs to the kernel
> and not the new files) is about 174090 bytes which is a lot.
>
> YA
>
But that is not a
> JFS doesn't require any modifications to existing code, its only an
> addition.
It depends how clean the interface is. It is possible to avoid changing
core code by writing your own clone of it - that isnt good and doesnt make
people happy sometimes.
> XFS on the contrary is far more
Hi,
From what I understand from Linus's mail to lkml, there is a difference
between JFS and XFS:
JFS doesn't require any modifications to existing code, its only an
addition.
XFS on the contrary is far more intrusive.
So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
for
Hello,
Question.
Are there plans to include JFS and XFS in the kernel?
Both those projects have been declared stable by their development
teams, and I'm guessing they can now be included as experimental, just
as reiser has been.
Just curious,
-Kervin
Steve Best wrote:
>
> June 28, 2001:
Hello,
Question.
Are there plans to include JFS and XFS in the kernel?
Both those projects have been declared stable by their development
teams, and I'm guessing they can now be included as experimental, just
as reiser has been.
Just curious,
-Kervin
Steve Best wrote:
June 28, 2001:
Hi,
From what I understand from Linus's mail to lkml, there is a difference
between JFS and XFS:
JFS doesn't require any modifications to existing code, its only an
addition.
XFS on the contrary is far more intrusive.
So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
for
Hi,
So I only hope that the smart guys at SGI find a way to prepare the
patches the way Linus loves because now the file
patch-2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1-core (which contains the modifs to the kernel
and not the new files) is about 174090 bytes which is a lot.
YA
But that is not a patch
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
Hi,
From what I understand from Linus's mail to lkml, there is a difference
between JFS and XFS:
JFS doesn't require any modifications to existing code, its only an
addition.
XFS on the contrary is far more intrusive.
So it seems that even
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Luigi Genoni wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
for instance), and even if it is less robust (I don't know if it is, I
It is not less complete nor less robust, it's a different
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, james rich wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Luigi Genoni wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Yaacov Akiba Slama wrote:
So it seems that even if JFS is less complete than XFS (no ACL, quotas
for instance), and even if it is less robust (I don't know if it is, I
It is not
Steve Lord wrote:
Hi,
So I only hope that the smart guys at SGI find a way to prepare the
patches the way Linus loves because now the file
patch-2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1-core (which contains the modifs to the kernel
and not the new files) is about 174090 bytes which is a lot.
YA
But that is
JFS doesn't require any modifications to existing code, its only an
addition.
It depends how clean the interface is. It is possible to avoid changing
core code by writing your own clone of it - that isnt good and doesnt make
people happy sometimes.
XFS on the contrary is far more intrusive.
20 matches
Mail list logo
