Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> James Pearson wrote:
>
>>- [fs] xfs: backport to rhel5.4 kernel (Eric Sandeen ) [470845]
>>- [fs] xfs: update to 2.6.28.6 codebase (Eric Sandeen ) [470845]
>>
>>Eric Sandeen is ex-SGI and I guess the experienced XFS engineer
>>mentioned ...
>
> No, Eric is doing ext4 (a
James Pearson wrote:
> - [fs] xfs: backport to rhel5.4 kernel (Eric Sandeen ) [470845]
> - [fs] xfs: update to 2.6.28.6 codebase (Eric Sandeen ) [470845]
>
> Eric Sandeen is ex-SGI and I guess the experienced XFS engineer
> mentioned ...
No, Eric is doing ext4 (and has been for quite some while
Geoff Galitz wrote:
>
> FWIW, at FOSDEM 2009 Ted T'so said that he anticipated official XFS support
> from Redhat in the near future as they recently hired some experienced XFS
> engineers.
>
> It was not an official announcement of any kind, he was just speculating
> during a presentation on ex
>
> xfs kmod's for centos-5 have so far been done within the centos loop,
> but this is interesting - looks like 5.4 might have a tech-preview for
> xfs included in.
FWIW, at FOSDEM 2009 Ted T'so said that he anticipated official XFS support
from Redhat in the near future as they recently hire
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 07:34:13AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> >> I never thought of that given that they come from the plus repo. So its
> >> only
> >
> > iirc, the xfs kmod's are not kernel ver dependant an
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
> Time to format isn't really an issue as it is done once before being
> put into production. The biggest concern is processing performance and
> time to fsck as well as data integrity and recoverability.
Listen, when you're talking a multi TB or PB file sy
On Apr 17, 2009, at 5:01 PM, "James A. Peltier"
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> I think it's worth while to keep xfs updated for a while until ext4
>> has made enough of an in-road to say xfs should be depreciated in
>> favor of ext4.
>>
>> -Ross
>
> Considering that it s
list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] 5.3 and XFS
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
> I think it's worth while to keep xfs updated for a while until ext4
> has made enough of an in-road to say xfs should be depreciated in
> favor of ext4.
>
> -Ross
Considering that it still takes se
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> >> I never thought of that given that they come from the plus repo. So its
> >> only
> >> a matter of time then before it appears for the 5.3 kernels... If
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> I never thought of that given that they come from the plus repo. So its only
>> a matter of time then before it appears for the 5.3 kernels... If I have
>> time this
>> weekend, I'll yank an srpm down from the 5.2
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> I never thought of that given that they come from the plus repo. So its only
> a matter of time then before it appears for the 5.3 kernels... If I have time
> this
> weekend, I'll yank an srpm down from the 5.2 branch kmod and see what's
> involved in making this (Never d
>xfs kmod's for centos-5 have so far been done within the centos loop,
>but this is interesting - looks like 5.4 might have a tech-preview for
>xfs included in.
I never thought of that given that they come from the plus repo. So its only
a matter of time then before it appears for the 5.3 kernels.
On 04/15/2009 08:58 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> Looking at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469401
> has me a bit unsure about the kmod for 5.3's kernel, is not expected
> to appear?
xfs kmod's for centos-5 have so far been done within the centos loop,
but this is interesting - looks
13 matches
Mail list logo
