Anyone out there that uses XFS or JFS on an old desktop box?

Anyone out there that uses XFS or JFS on an old desktop box?

Post by Daniel Mo » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:50:40



Please share some of your impressions ?
f ex:
Are you a long time user?
Satisfaction, compared to the ext2 fs?
What Ratio do you have between your memory, and Mounted, and currently
paged active Hard-drive storage space ?

Is f ex. 1MB/40MB in ratio sufficient  for XFS/JFS ?
( or can you have even less ? with out it breaking or slowing to stall ?)

Is linux VFS able to cope well with the B-tree+ - index methods?
etc, etc

I am sick of my old ext2fs for numerous reasons, and I don't consider
either the Reiser fs, or the ext3fs as being mature enough for my
needs.

From reading, the design papers of the XFS from 1993, and a fs -summary
from year 2000 I get the impression that the XFS is mature, fast and reliable.
on desktop machines, as well as laptops. (designed for Hd-Spinn-down)
as well as for graphical applications.

( also: says well tested and supplied with sufficient recovery utilities.)

Is this really so ?

I haven't read through my docs on JFS yet ...so I might return with questions
on it later on...

/Daniel
--

You could also use dan4 (at) pc.nu, if you don't like to post to news.

Image

2 make sure u make sense.
.

--
make sure u make sense.

 
 
 

Anyone out there that uses XFS or JFS on an old desktop box?

Post by Thomas Steffe » Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:10:38



> Are you a long time user?

Yes, but not of xfs of course...

Quote:> Satisfaction, compared to the ext2 fs?

Very much. It doesn't use the space as well as ext2 or ever reiserfs,
but the performace especially with large files is very good. Directory
operation can be quite a bit slower.

I found only one use where it is seriously slower than ext2, and that
is gnus importing my mailbox. Obviously it writes a log entry after
getting every single mail, so that the consistency is always granted
even in case of a crash. This is very different to ext2, which caches
the holes process and the consistency on disk is only reached at the
next sync.

Quote:> What Ratio do you have between your memory, and Mounted, and currently
> paged active Hard-drive storage space ?

1G mem, 60G hd, 2G swap. Though I think that you can use very
different ratios without a problem.

Quote:> Is f ex. 1MB/40MB in ratio sufficient  for XFS/JFS ?
> ( or can you have even less ? with out it breaking or slowing to
> stall ?)

I think though, but obviously I am not testing a low memory setup.

Quote:> I am sick of my old ext2fs for numerous reasons, and I don't
> consider either the Reiser fs, or the ext3fs as being mature enough
> for my needs.

ext2fs is very mature but has some shortcomings. I don't know a single
practical case where ext2 performs seriously worse than xfs. Reiserfs
seems very nice too, I think it has matured a lot since being in the
canonical kernel (and being used in SuSE).  

Quote:> From reading, the design papers of the XFS from 1993, and a fs
> -summary from year 2000 I get the impression that the XFS is mature,
> fast and reliable. on desktop machines,

Yes, very much so.

Quote:> as well as laptops.

Possible, but I never reached acceptable spindow behaviour in Linux
using any filesystem.

Quote:> as well as for graphical applications.

It certainly rocks with big media files.

Quote:> ( also: says well tested and supplied with sufficient recovery utilities.)

Yes, xfs_repair is quite useful :-/

But don't drop reiserfs just now, especially if you are tight on
space.

                Thomas
--
Umweltfreundlich, da aus recycleten Buchstaben.

 
 
 

Anyone out there that uses XFS or JFS on an old desktop box?

Post by Daniel Mo » Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:23:24


AAA cool! Someone wrote me ! = )

Hi Thomas.

Ok As I have read up a little since I wrote this, three more questions
before I make comment on everything that you wrote to me...

The XFS supports NFS -so they tell me , Are you using NFS?

    In case of: Does it work without problems?

Are you using XFS together with ext2/3 partitions in your Root Directory tree?

(I don't even know if this is said to work, but from a users point of view,
You will have to depend upon that it does work, and work well.



>> Satisfaction, compared to the ext2 fs?

>Very much. It doesn't use the space as well as ext2 or ever reiserfs,
>but the performace especially with large files is very good. Directory
>operation can be quite a bit slower.

So the gnu find , and updatedb programs still takes ages, and hours then?

This would perhaps mean that the Linux VFS adaptation to B-trees+ is not
quite  implemented  in 2.4 kernels then I think ???

Quote:>I found only one use where it is seriously slower than ext2, and that
>is gnus importing my mailbox. Obviously it writes a log entry after
>getting every single mail, so that the consistency is always granted
>even in case of a crash. This is very different to ext2, which caches
>the holes process and the consistency on disk is only reached at the
>next sync.

And I suppose there is no way of tuning this behaviour, from a users
point of view?

Quote:>> What Ratio do you have between your memory, and Mounted ....
>1G mem, 60G hd, 2G swap.

...snip...

Sorry for being a bit unclear in my question.
What you are saying above is that you have 1MB/60MB of ratio if
I translate it to the terms I used below...
so XFS will probably take up less! resources than my old ext2fs.
(as you also stated.)

Quote:>> Is f ex. 1MB/40MB in ratio sufficient  for XFS/JFS ?
>> I am sick of my old ext2fs...
>ext2fs is very mature but has some shortcomings. I don't know a single
>practical case where ext2 performs seriously worse than xfs. Reiserfs
>seems very nice too, I think it has matured a lot since being in the
>canonical kernel (and being used in SuSE).  

Ok this makes me a little bit confused.. But as I said above
It might be that the B-tree+ Directory lookup functions, and Leaf-nodes,
is'nt implemented in the linux VFS until 2.6 ???

Quote:>> From reading, the design papers of the XFS from 1993, and a fs
>> -summary from year 2000 I get the impression that the XFS is mature,
>> fast and reliable. on desktop machines,

>Yes, very much so.

>> as well as laptops.

>Possible, but I never reached acceptable spindow behaviour in Linux
>using any filesystem.

ok I saw a discussion few days ago on linux-kernel where the spinndown
problematics were probably fixed in design of the ext3fs, by a tunable
option in mkfs -i believe.

Quote:>> ( also: says well tested and supplied with sufficient recovery utilities.)

>Yes, xfs_repair is quite useful :-/

Why the sad look? It ( I hope ) doesn't mean that you had to use it does it???

Quote:>But don't drop reiserfs just now, especially if you are tight on
>space.
>                Thomas
>--
>Umweltfreundlich, da aus recycleten Buchstaben.

Space is not really the issue, just speed. I have tired boxes from the late
90:s. It only matters when I compile. (or do graphical work, which I btw don't )

I have heard that the Reiserfs system can be a bit unstable,
some folks claimed to have run so called "crash" tests quite recently,
comparing Reiser and Ext3 file systems ( I think it was on a thread in
alt.os.linux.slackware )
"crash test" = repeatedly copy large amount of files between file systems,
while switching power supply voltage off and on" =)  )

And their results were in favour of the ext3fs. The Reiser fs kept working ,
but started to echo unexplainable error messages according to the testers

But the main reasons for not choosing Reiserfs is that the recovery tools
aren't what they chould be, when you once get problems, or so I've heard.

Another thing I've read is that Neither Reiserfs or the JFS supports NFS
well just yet. ( The JFS developers at IBM, even straight out considers
NFS to be deprecated, and want to replace it with something new...=(  )

I know that they are developing Reiserfs V4.0 at the moment, were
things like NFS will be completed ( on homepage namesys.com now ) but as
always they are developing it for the newest kernel - 2.5/2.6

And I will probably want to stick to the old kernels as long as I can.

(My No 1 Reason for wanting to test experimental root-fs, is to see if they
are improving lookup performance so much that -

"My own `newbie' file system Ideas"  get to become  un-nescessary for the
time being. In that case I will not have to stress the whole linux
development community with some rediculously looking  points of views
from a guy who can just by an inch, read some of the Linux header files.

 - I'm  a lazy *, I know  = )  ))

 /Sincere Regards - Daniel Mose

--
make sure u make sense.

 
 
 

Anyone out there that uses XFS or JFS on an old desktop box?

Post by Daniel Mo » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:23:59



>But don't drop reiserfs just now, especially if you are tight on
>space.

>                Thomas
>--
>Umweltfreundlich, da aus recycleten Buchstaben.

Correction regarding Crash testing some file systems:

I've gone over the articles in alt.os.linux.slackware, but did not
find the article there.

As I clearly remember having read this article It was probably posted
in one of the swedish linux forums that I visit on a regular basis which
means that it is written in -swedish- and therefore somewhat unsuitable for
referal at this news group. I'm sorry about this.

Correction Regarding Reiserfs and NFS...

Going through the Reiserfs FAQ I noticed that Reiserfs DOES implement
NFS and has done this for quite a while.

Some problems with incompatability between knfsd and Reiserfs has been
solved from Linux 2.4.7 according to FAQ.

Maybe I will go for Reiser since Reiser also does seems to
support APM and hdd spinndown as well. (acording to thread in Debian-User
mailing list)
There is still one issue with Reiserfs that actually WAS discussed in
alt.os.linux.slackware: If a Reiser root partition actually does break,
the error recovery features have been somewhat poor. Maybe this has
changed though...

/regards Daniel
--
make sure u make sense.

 
 
 

1. After / moved from XFS to JFS : "error 22 mounting xfs flags"...

On Mandrake 9.1

I mirrored hda to hdb using "rsync -archive -H". hdb is a mirror of
hda with exactly the same ext3 boot partiton, swap partition and root
partition numbers. Only change is the root filesystem type.

I flipped the IDE master/slave so hda and hdb were swapped, then,
using the rescue disk, I mounted the ext3 boot partition and the new
JFS root partition, chroot and re-ran Lilo with fstab modified to
reflect root now being JFS.

However, when I try to boot I get...
mount: error 22 mounting XFS flags  Kernel panic: No init found. Try
passing init= option to kernel.

How do I convince this kernel that it should be looking for a JFS root
partition not an XFS partition???

I've modified fstab, re-ran Lilo chrooted, re-ran mkinitrd chrooted
with /proc/mounts audited and placed in the proc directory (proc is
otherwise empty when you chroot!, unless I mount --bind it first).

A search on Google found just one other soul who has reported this
message. He deleted an XFS partition and made a new ReiserFS partition
but no one had responded to his hideous plight :-(

Anyone know how to do a successful filesystem transplant without
losing the root filesystem?

2. Linux & Novell NDSq

3. JFS or XFS

4. Solaris(Ultra1) & Exceed

5. Problem with jfs and dbench 80 (ext3, reiserfs, xfs are OK)

6. /usr/spool/lp/model for OKIDATA 180

7. Anyone Using Caldera's Network Desktop?

8. XFree86 : Curved windows in hi-res?

9. Using an old AIX box for firewall

10. Using LGX on Somewhat Old Boxes

11. Anyone using an old Gateway Solo 2100 with RH 7.3?

12. unix desktop on pc, pc desktop on unix box, free

13. X Windows and my old old old old video card