From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from lostlogicx.com (host145.south.iit.edu [216.47.130.145]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F70DABB00 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:45:13 -0600 (CST) Received: (from lostlogic@localhost) by lostlogicx.com (8.11.4/8.11.2) id g9S1j6k29561; Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:45:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:45:06 -0600 From: Brandon Low To: Andrew Shrum Cc: Seth Mos , John Newman , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-sources-r9 kernel sources vs. XFS patch Message-ID: <20021027194506.H17400@lostlogicx.com> References: <20021027104124.Q88135-100000@xs1.xs4all.nl> <3DBC1C00.2070702@citlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3DBC1C00.2070702@citlink.net>; from ashrum@citlink.net on Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 05:01:52PM +0000 X-Operating-System: Linux found 2.4.20-pre10-mjc1 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 94610fdf-3706-41d3-8bdc-936af9caa5b6 X-Archives-Hash: 207f86da73f15a81e2ad7ec907bd4d5d > Hmm.. I haven't heard any success stories; yet. Anyone care to post > experiences? Anyway, 2.5.x has a lot of nice additions that we enjoy as > 2.4 backport patches in gentoo-sources, but this XFS buisness is > dissapointing. I would jump to 2.5.x right now and start testing/helping As has been mentioned about 1 dozen times before, patching XFS against 2.4 is not a job for the weak of heart. When I first got put in charge of managing the releases of gentoo-sources, drobbins and I agreed to drop XFS and to maintain it separately in xfs-sources, because that way we could offer a more complete and feature rich kernel for gentoo-sources. I have been working hard and so has MJC in order to get XFS back into gentoo-sources since there is obvious demand for it, that is why it is there as an experimental option for gentoo-sources-2.4.19-r10. The kernel that we are currently working on will hopefully have a better tested and better integrated XFS patch, borrowed from andrea archangeli's kernel. Speaking of which, we have available for your testing and XFS pleasure in the portage tree "aa-sources" which may work for you. > for a speedy 2.6 release, but nVidia's binary drivers are for 2.4 only > and haven't been usable patched (what could be patched) since > 2.5.24-dj2. This means that nVidia/XFS users are stuck playing patch > limbo. Does anyone have any helpful sollutions? What changes are going > to be made in regard to XFS for the next gentoo-sources kernel > (2.4.19-r10 w/ use="xfs" will *not* boot for me at all, and > 2.4.19-xfs-r2 is not stable enough for my tastes). > I would start over with ReiserFS, but I *prefer *XFS and have not > had problems with a custom 2.4.18 kernel with *lots* of patches. In my experience, xfs-sources-2.4.19-r2 is one of the most stable kernels I've ever used and I do mean ever. Of course you seem to have a different experience there. Now this is where we hit a highly opinionated brick wall. carpaski@gentoo.org and I have been using reiserfs on production grade machines all over our school for close to a year now (this includes the time when reiser was considered 'unstable') and I won't use anything else in a production environment any more, because reiser has proven itself through kernel crash after kernel crash and school power outage after power outage. The big difference in the kernel world between these two filesystems is that reiser works and plays well with the data structures present in 2.4 and XFS doesn't, plain and simple. This makes the XFS patch, as I've mentioned before, require modifying tens of thousands of lines of kernel core code where other filesystems such as JFS or Reiserfs only needed to modify a few hundred (even to include quota and other features I believe reiser still modifys less than 2000 lines of core code). The translation of all this is as follows: Until you are going to do the work to patch XFS into a kernel for us, don't whine too much, we're doing our best to get it in, but it tends to destablalize things WAY too much for us to make it standard. --Brandon (This is the last time I will comment about XFS on the lists until someone brings up something new, because I've said everything I just said above several times before)