[nzlug] Dell are sooo pwn3d

[Daniel Pittman]

Michael Adams <linux_mike at paradise.net.nz> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:00:51 +1000
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Volker Kuhlmann <hidden at paradise.net.nz> writes:
>> > On Fri 29 Jun 2007 10:37:41 NZST +1200, Craig Box wrote:
>> >
>> >> Windows and Mac OS X don't support XFS either.  Do you think it's
>> >> really a fair complaint that Ubuntu didn't work with your
>> >> non-standard configuration?
>> >
>> > Yes it is a fair complaint that Ubuntu doesn't support XFS. 
>> 
>> Now, this puzzles me because when y'all say "doesn't support XFS" you
>> presumably mean something like, maybe, "does support XFS":

[...]

>> I don't know of any distribution that doesn't build XFS into their
>> stock kernels.  Likewise, every distribution I know ships a version of
>> grub or lilo that can boot from XFS and so forth.
>
> http://gnu.org.in/pipermail/gnowsys-dev/2006-August/000156.html
> "if the xfs support is available as a module, then the root partion
> cannot be other than ext2/ext3 for these are native to linux kernel."
>
> http://forums.techguy.org/unix-linux/552849-file-systems.html#post4560767
>
> If the above advice has changed, i would be interested to hear it.

Both of those are absolutely, without question totally and completely
wrong.  They are factually incorrect and have been so for the entire
life of the Ubuntu distribution.

The 'warty warthog' release contained, as part of the 'grub' package,
the file 'lib/grub/i386-pc/xfs_stage1_5' -- the component needed for
grub to be able to load the second stage boot loader from an XFS file
system.

lilo, available but not used by default on pretty much every
distribution, has also had XFS support for the same period.


As I recall you might run into trouble if you converted from ext3 to xfs
because the build process for the initrd image was a bit limited (or
over-optimized) by installing modules only as required.

It certainly did work to boot off an XFS root, though perhaps not in
quite so user-friendly a fashion as you might hope.  


I can't exactly say that the advice has changed -- you have not actually
needed a non-XFS boot partition since XFS was merged with the core
kernel[1] -- but it certainly isn't true.


Also of note: the claim that ext2 or ext3 are in any meaningful way more
"native" to the Linux kernel is utterly incorrect.  

They are the "standard" choice, yes, but there is no part of the Linux
kernel design that is tied to them or favours them in any particular
fashion.[2]




> I have used XFS constantly since it was first recommended to me as a
> fast journalling system in 2001. It works and works well although on
> my box it is hardly pushed to the limits that the tester was doing in
> 2001.  I use it for all partitions bar swap.

I have, in the past, done so.  I ended up moving back to ext3 because
the aspects of XFS design resulting in files that change size but have
not had their content written yet being zero-ed in an unclean restart
didn't appeal to me.

Regards,
        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  XFS supports the 'bmap' ioctl that LILO uses to locate the kernel
     on disk, so was supported with that boot loader since that release.

[2]  I don't credit the idea, sometimes advanced, that the "advanced"
     access to file meta-data proposed for ReiserFS 4 was in any way
     rejected due to it conflicting with ext3 type file system design.

-- 
Digital Infrastructure Solutions -- making IT simple, stable and secure
Phone: 0401 155 707        email: contact at digital-infrastructure.com.au
                 http://digital-infrastructure.com.au/