FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-20-2008, 04:23 AM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

Hi folks... trying to pick between jfs and xfs for a filesystem. In
the past we've used jfs with CentOS + centosplus, however, an older
post indicated that this may not be the best choice as the version of
jfs included with the centosplus kernel would only be as new as the
version that was included in the 2.6.18 kernel as RH doesn't backport
fixes...

It looks like xfs isn't part of the centosplus kernel, but instead is
provided as a kmod -- so I'm thinking it might be the better choice
based purely on the fact that it's likely to be current. Is my
understanding correct there?

What would stop us from building a kmod-jfs against the latest jfs from
the up-upstream kernel and not building jfs.ko in the centosplus kernel
at all? It looks like jfsutils is a fairly recent version...

Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:46 AM
John R Pierce
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

Ray Van Dolson wrote:

Hi folks... trying to pick between jfs and xfs for a filesystem. In
the past we've used jfs with CentOS + centosplus, however, ...


CentOS and its upstream source, RHEL, support ex3fs. I'm not sure why
you'd want to use anything else. If you have a specific requirement
for JFS, I'd suggest running a BSD or AIX system where JFS is native...
If you need XFS, I'd run a Linux distribution that supports it natively.


If you roll your own hybrid operating system, you get to test and
validate it, and if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 05:55 AM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46:00PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>> Hi folks... trying to pick between jfs and xfs for a filesystem. In
>> the past we've used jfs with CentOS + centosplus, however, ...
>
> CentOS and its upstream source, RHEL, support ex3fs. I'm not sure why
> you'd want to use anything else. If you have a specific requirement for
> JFS, I'd suggest running a BSD or AIX system where JFS is native... If you
> need XFS, I'd run a Linux distribution that supports it natively.
>
> If you roll your own hybrid operating system, you get to test and validate
> it, and if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.

Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.

If you'd like, consider the question academic vs giving me a
recommendation that pushes me down the path of unsupported filesystem
doom. :-)

Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 06:20 AM
Bill Campbell
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46:00PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
>> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>>> Hi folks... trying to pick between jfs and xfs for a filesystem. In
>>> the past we've used jfs with CentOS + centosplus, however, ...
>>
>> CentOS and its upstream source, RHEL, support ex3fs. I'm not sure why
>> you'd want to use anything else. If you have a specific requirement for
>> JFS, I'd suggest running a BSD or AIX system where JFS is native... If you
>> need XFS, I'd run a Linux distribution that supports it natively.
>>
>> If you roll your own hybrid operating system, you get to test and validate
>> it, and if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
>
>Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
>should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
>me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.

I have not tried either of these on CentOS, but have on SuSE
Enterprise Linux. I have lost data on both jfs and xfs on SuSE
so now use ext3 for everything as it's the only file system that
has never bitten me in the butt.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
Fax: (206) 232-9186

Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity --
Dennis Ritchie
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 06:22 AM
Dunc
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

Ray Van Dolson wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46:00PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:


Ray Van Dolson wrote:


Hi folks... trying to pick between jfs and xfs for a filesystem. In
the past we've used jfs with CentOS + centosplus, however, ...

CentOS and its upstream source, RHEL, support ex3fs. I'm not sure why
you'd want to use anything else. If you have a specific requirement for
JFS, I'd suggest running a BSD or AIX system where JFS is native... If you
need XFS, I'd run a Linux distribution that supports it natively.


If you roll your own hybrid operating system, you get to test and validate
it, and if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.



Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.

If you'd like, consider the question academic vs giving me a
recommendation that pushes me down the path of unsupported filesystem
doom. :-)


I've been using XFS on centos for a couple of years with no problems.
Only minor annoyance was when the kmod for new kernels was slow to
appear, but thats not a problem any more due to the non kernel version
dependant kmods.


Dunc
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 06:26 AM
"Jiann-Ming Su"
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
> should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
> me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.
>

Which one to use seems to come down to what you're using that
particular filesystem for. I'm using xfs with CentOS 5.2 on one of my
system's non-root filesystem. Seems to work well. I haven't used jfs
on CentOS in a while, but not for any of the reasons you've listed.

--
Jiann-Ming Su
"I have to decide between two equally frightening options.
If I wanted to do that, I'd vote." --Duckman
"The system's broke, Hank. The election baby has peed in
the bath water. You got to throw 'em both out." --Dale Gribble
"Those who vote decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything." --Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 07:34 AM
"Laurent Wandrebeck"
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

2008/11/20 Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org>:
>
> Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
> should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
> me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.
>
> If you'd like, consider the question academic vs giving me a
> recommendation that pushes me down the path of unsupported filesystem
> doom. :-)
Outside more up-to-date question, here is my own experience with jfs/xfs.
The bigger the files with JFS, the slower it is.
XFS tends to get similar performance, whatever the filesize is.
I've had data corruption with both. The thing is, I don't know where
it comes from with JFS, with XFS *do* *not* *ever* run a box without
an UPS. Unclean shutdown will always eat some of your data.
I've been happy with ext3 (no data corruption ever happened) but its
speed is behind the first two.
Hope this helps,
Laurent
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 11:21 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

Ray Van Dolson wrote:

Thanks for the reply John. However, my question wasn't so much "if I
should" but how the xfs support in CentOS compares to jfs. It seems to
me that xfs is a bit more up-to-date.


Couple of points from my side of the line:

I use xfs, i dont use jfs. but only on x86_64

xfs in centos has eyeball attention from some people who are and
previously have been involved with xfs upstream ( sgi )


xfs in CentOS is more widely used than jfs is in centos ( impression I
get from looking at logs on and off - generated at mirror.centos.org ).


Having said all this, I know atleast 1 person who is indeed running jfs
at the moment with CentOS5. And I am sure there are usecase's where Jfs
is a better option than Xfs.


Does this help answer the question ?

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:59 PM
"Jiann-Ming Su"
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Laurent Wandrebeck
<l.wandrebeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Outside more up-to-date question, here is my own experience with jfs/xfs.
> The bigger the files with JFS, the slower it is.
> XFS tends to get similar performance, whatever the filesize is.
> I've had data corruption with both. The thing is, I don't know where
> it comes from with JFS, with XFS *do* *not* *ever* run a box without
> an UPS. Unclean shutdown will always eat some of your data.
> I've been happy with ext3 (no data corruption ever happened) but its
> speed is behind the first two.
>

Supposedly ext3 has sped up with the 2.6 kernels.

http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html

The only thing I don't like about ext3 is the fsck. On relatively
small filesystems, it's an annoyance. But on huge filesystem,
500-1000GB, a system may take a long, long time to come back up.
--
Jiann-Ming Su
"I have to decide between two equally frightening options.
If I wanted to do that, I'd vote." --Duckman
"The system's broke, Hank. The election baby has peed in
the bath water. You got to throw 'em both out." --Dale Gribble
"Those who vote decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything." --Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-20-2008, 03:03 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default XFS or JFS on CentOS 5?

Jiann-Ming Su wrote:

The only thing I don't like about ext3 is the fsck. On relatively
small filesystems, it's an annoyance. But on huge filesystem,
500-1000GB, a system may take a long, long time to come back up.


if you dont want it, turn it off
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org