On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:55:28AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > >I'd have to modify that. Instead of NIH, my worry is that since XFS > >was designed for a different kernel, it's been "shimmed" into Linux > >and so doesn't integrate as well as ext2/3 and ReiserFS. Same > >concern with jfs. > > I suppose that's a valid concern, but in the absence of any evidence > of problems caused by it I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep. :) >
Given that SGI boxes now use Linux and have dropped Irix but still use XFS, I think it pretty likely that they have done a good job of ensuring that Linux's XFS is up to snuff. IBM started JFS version 1 with AIX, then ported it to OS/2 and added features to make it version 2, then ported it back to AIX where it is the standard FS. They got Linux working on their newer Power servers to meet customer demand and ported JFS to linux so that they had a common filesystem irrespective of OS. In both cases, the porting was done or directed by the origionator of the filesystem for reasons that impact their bottom line. To some extent their reputations are on the line with their filesystems. As they are right now, I would trust them both equally well. They each have their stronger points that make one more suitable than the other for certain uses of the filesystem. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
