Which 2.6 kernel are you using? Unless its 2.6.5 or newer i think you're playing with fire.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Kevin OGorman wrote: > This all fills me with fear and trepidation. > > I have a dual-xeon box that was running an older 2.4 > kernel, trying to use ext3, but got tired of kernel > panics. With all the good vibes around ext3 in general, > I assumed that the presence of 4 hyperthreads was > a problem that most people didn't face. Soo.... > > I'm bringing this machine up with gentoo and the big > data partition is xfs. No problems so far, but I'm > worried. I'm using a 2.6 kernel, perhaps close to the > bleeding edge (I don't remember exactly how it > was described, but most were 2.4 when I started this). > > Wish me luck... > > ++ kevin > > --- Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>Just to stire the pot, and play devil's advocate, > > i will say > > > > >that>>>it hasn't achiveved respectability in alot of > > groups. There > > > > >are>>>some heated attacks on gentoo on the XFS > > mailign list, and > > > > >i've>>>seen some snide remarks on LKML as well. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>The majority of the snide remarks come from people > > who have looked > > > > >at>Gentoo's special kernel patches and been > > revulsed. There's a > > > > >>disturbing corellation between people reporting > > unreproducable XFS > > > > >>filesystem corruption and using Gentoo's kernels. > > > > >> > > > > I did a little research on both the XFS comments about > > gentoo and on the > > gentoo-user list. Here's my take on the situation: > > > > 1. Gentoo offers all sorts of kernels, from plain vanilla > > to every sort > > of experimental kernel imaginable. There aren't any > > current statistics, > > but, if last year was any indication, a lot of people go > > for the > > experimental kernels. For me, the vanilla kernels are > > good enough. > > > > 2. The most recent XFS complaints I could find about > > gentoo were a > > mixture of 2.6 32-bit and 64-bit users, and yes most of > > these were > > experimental kernels. There are only a handful of reports > > from gentoo > > users. > > > > 3. The XFS developers choose to ignore any reports using > > an experimental > > kernel. I'm of two minds about that approach. 1) Sounds > > fine. It's more > > difficult to analyze with extra patches. 2) The reports > > aren't "my > > kernel broke" but "my file system crapped out." If the > > XFS code is > > really fragile enough that the presence of some extra > > patches is a > > problem, then maybe some extra work needs to be done by > > the developers. > > I suspect that some of the reported problems are indeed > > XFS bugs that > > will go unsolved because the developers don't like to > > deal with extra > > patches. I haven't seen a lot of reports from ext3 users > > on experimental > > kernels saying "my file system crapped out.:- reiserfs > > yes, even on > > vanilla kernels. > > > > 4. The comments in the XFS postings complaining about > > gentoo are about > > as non-specific as you can get. "They include patches > > they shouldn't and > > they omit patches they should have." "Get an RH asap." It > > would be nice > > to have some real examples and some analysis of what the > > presence / > > absence of patches has to do with the filesystem layer. > > Where's the > > beef, i.e. the proof that the problem has anything to do > > with extra > > patches? Not all kernel patches affect the filesystem > > layer. There's a > > similar situation with "I don't like the version of > > glibc/gcc your're > > running." As above, no real information, no taking the > > opportunity to > > do advance work to deal with the glibc/gcc changes which > > will just come > > back to bite later with even more users, just griping. > > > > 5. I've ignored the comments about 2.4 kernels. In those > > days XFS was > > patch city. It should be a little easier for everyone now > > that > > XFS is in the kernel source tree. > > > > 6. The hard feelings go both ways. The gentoo developers > > were burned > > badly by an XFS server they were running a while ago, and > > the XFS > > developers hate to see problem reports from gentoo > > because of the > > experimental kernels. In an ideal world, there would be > > more cooperation > > and less animosity, but unfortunately the trend is toward > > animosity. > > Neither attitude is to be commended. > > > > In summary, gentoo is respected by a growing number of > > users, but > > only tolerated by a large number of others. End of story > > for my part. > > > > Enjoy, > > > > -- > > /\/\ > > ( CR ) Collins Richey > > \/\/ fly Independence Air - they run Linux > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unsub/Pause/Etc -> > > > http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > ===== > Dr. Kevin O'Gorman (805) 756-2986 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Home Page: http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~kogorman > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
