by >>My $0.02- I cut my teeth on BSD based systems, and it did take an effort to
>>get used to doing things differently under AIX. However, by doing things
>>differently, they also had the chance to do things better.. While they
>>didn't succeed in all cases, I think they by and large did at least as well,
>>and in some things (filesystem, ODM) did much better.
>Then why is it that on our 3090 running AIX, it takes 1.5 _hours_ to
>fsck /var/spool/news? (3380's) It takes _minutes_ on a comparable
>filesystem with SunOS and a measly 4/260. (Without Sun's fast fsck mod.)
>That's a better filesystem?
lwvanels is referring to AIX v3, which to date only runs on the RS/6000,
and which has a very different (dare I say "improved") filesystem
structure.
If you don't like spanning physical disks, run "chlv -u 1", or create the
partition with max of one physical volume. You can make the LVM act
like a conventional filesystem manager (if you want) this way.
There have also been gripes about recovery using the logical volume mgr.
Those who lament the jam they get into if they lose a disk drive are,
IMHO, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They think it's a
great and wonderful thing to be able to span physical disks with a
filesystem as long as they never have a failure. Then they go into a
panic because they don't have backup policies which guarantee that
they'll be able to recover their data. Why blame that on the operating
system? If their building gets burnt down, who will they blame the
data loss on?
From: Vance R. Bass AIX Systems Specialist, IBM Knoxville
Any resemblance between the above and the official IBM
position is purely coincidental.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| That's not going to be easy without the main computer, but I suppose |
| we could network a few tricorders together." |
| Lt. Cmdr. Geordi LaForge, Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Brothers" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+