XFS is a high-performance journaling file system. It provides quick recovery after a crash, fast transactions, high scalability, and excellent bandwidth. Numerous changes were made for 1.3.0.
XFS 1.3.0 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
yaayy!
Congratulations to all the developers @ SGI and those who supports this excellent Enterprise FS.
Aw Hell ! I guess its something else I got to upgrade. Great FS though.
Did they do any acutual work or did they just copy it of from SCO
)))))))))
Just joking, XFS is the best. I have a few SGI machines at work and I’m quite familiar with it.
I am actually thinking about dropping ext3, and going to either xfs or reiserfs. It is for a workstation, so I don’t need huge performances; does anyone can give me the pros and cons for each fs ?
Put simply ReiserFS is better for small files and XFS is better at handeling large files.
what do you consider small files/big files?
Their changelog rocks. heh:
Description: remove some ‘temporary debugging code’ which has been there a couple of years at least.
Author: Steve Lord ([email protected])
– linux/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c:
remove extra checks in extent code which were always executed.
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/Release-1.3/1.3ChangesSinc…
I think reiser4 has better data journaling and uses more CPU. But both are probably similar for handling files, large or small, reiser might be slightly faster.
XFS was designed for reading and writing multiple video streams as either uncompressed images or a single file. Its good for working with both lots of small files and large files, and huge amounts of data. I would suspect that reiser4 is more experimental at this stage, but both are probably very stable.
This is mostly based on opinion and my experience working at SGI, learning about XFS, not real-world tests.
I wonder when we’ll see someone like Redhat, Debian or SuSE use XFS by default.
> I think reiser4 has better data journaling and uses more CPU. But both are probably similar for handling files, large or small, reiser might be slightly faster.
This is really a non issue. I read somewhere (probably kerneltrap.org) that the guys integrating reiserfs4 into the kernel are finding lots of places in the code that they can remove or streamline. This CPU thing isn’t permanent, it’s just part of the code and algorithms being so new. Expect the end product to be on par with the other file systems for cpu usage.
One huge problem with XFS is that the driver is substantially larger than either ext3 or reiserfs. That also means it’s more complex. I personally would rather see reiserfs4 fill that rull when it becomes fully stabilized. It’s a good filesystem designed from the ground up to work with the Linux kernel.
Well, I’d really like RH to use XFS as their default FS… SGI already supplies a bootdisk to make XFS possible on for RH install…
But I mean… RH is still on ext3! RH would be so much faster alone, switching FS.
“SGI already supplies a bootdisk to make XFS possible on for RH install…
”
There is also one more and less official XFS install debian disk.
>> SGI already supplies a bootdisk to make XFS possible on for RH install…
>> There is also one more and less official XFS install debian disk.
IIRC SuSE will let you choose from Ext2, Ext3, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS, if you choose a custom/advanced install.
The install guide for Gentoo also mentions that XFS can be used, however the version of each FS is dependent on what version of the LiveCD you use. Also I think you have to use a particular set of kernel sources: xfs-sources.
I’m running xfs on my suse 8.2 build and it’s part of the basic setup. During a basic install, you can change any of the default options you are given, entering the hd setup gives you option to switch from the default of ReiserFs to any of the others mentioned (above). I chose XFS as I’d been using Reiser and despite all this talk about it being fast found that file searching was dog slow.
XFS is quicker on my machine (via kde find files option) but not by a great deal.
( well at least I perceive it as being faster, whether it is or not is another matter!!!!)
Just to remind everyone XFS has been available on the Mandrale distros since 8x.
Does 1.3 will come in 2.6-test series?
Just keep your xfs-sources around for your backup kernel and download the latest kernel with the xfs patches. Gentoo 1.4 works fine with XFS 1.3 and kernel 2.4.21. I just finished upgrading 2 boxes.
You do NOT have to use the included kernel sources but I did notice it’s heavily patched with a lot of extras. EX. preemptive patch and so on. These are not mandatory but do NOT forget to include support for devfs, this is mandatory for Gentoo.
RH doesn’t like adding extra binaries to the vanilla kernel so when kernel 2.6 will be released (which has XFS in it) redhat will most likely support it :p
That SCO wants to sue for JFS. Is this even included in most of these distros anyway. Just for interest, since this is about Journalling filesystems
There is an installer for Red Hat 9 on ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub0/Release-1.3/
check out..
(dont know if thats the exact directory..)
The correct directory is :
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/Release-1.3/kernel_rpms/RedHat9
>There is an installer for Red Hat 9 on >ftp://oss.sgi.com/pub0/Release-1.3/
>check out..
>(dont know if thats the exact directory..)
I was just wondering…we hear a lot of discussion about XFS versus ReiserFS versus EXT3. What about JFS? What is it good at? Are there any pros and cons of it compared to the others? Has anyone here tried it out?
I hadn’t really used it extensively, once I installed Mandrake with JFS a long time ago and it gave me hell (must have been early, it wasn’t yet in the 2.4 mainline) so I simply went back to ReiserFS. It is my understanding, and I could very well be wrong, that JFS is the slowest of the filesystems. However, like XFS, its quite robust and well tested (old) and is probably among the most stable. At least thats my guess. I don’t know anyone who uses JFS extensively, though XFS gets quite wide usage considering no distro that I’m aware of uses it by default. I, myself, use it. I find performance, subjectively speaking, similar to ReiserFS in most areas and better in a few others. Both feel faster then Ext2/3.
I used 1.2 a long time. I had many power outage here, and my files become corrupt every time. XFS appended junk bits to the end of them. I switched to ext2 to be more conservative, and never more had this problem.
I hope those problems were fixed in the 1.3, XFS is a fast and cool fs, despites my problems with it.
I used XFS in a partition with 40GB, and XFS become much slower when this partition was filled (just as little as ~ 40%)