Hello Stefan, We've been having a discussion on debian-user on the differences between XFS and JFS and where one would be better than the other for different applications. In the course of the discussion, Justin Piszcz sent a copy of an email he received from Dave Kleikamp at IBM who doesn't recommend JFS for enterprise use because it no longer has a full-time maintainer.
I wondered how an important package like a filesystem would end up in debian main stable when upstream doesn't recommend it. I thought that this would by itself have created a release-critical bug that would keep it out of stable. Would you care to comment or shed light on this issue? Please reply to the debian-user mailing list if possible. Thanks, Doug Tutty. On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 05:32:11PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:29:43PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: > >>On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > >>>On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:55:28AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > >>>>On Aug 4, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > >>>>>I'd have to modify that. Instead of NIH, my worry is that since XFS > >>>>>was designed for a different kernel, it's been "shimmed" into Linux > >>>>>and so doesn't integrate as well as ext2/3 and ReiserFS. Same > >>>>>concern with jfs. > >>>> > >>>>I suppose that's a valid concern, but in the absence of any evidence > >>>>of problems caused by it I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep. :) > >>> > >>>Given that SGI boxes now use Linux and have dropped Irix but still use > >>>XFS, I think it pretty likely that they have done a good job of ensuring > >>>that Linux's XFS is up to snuff. > >>> > >>>IBM started JFS version 1 with AIX, then ported it to OS/2 and added > >>>features to make it version 2, then ported it back to AIX where it is > >>>the standard FS. They got Linux working on their newer Power servers to > >>>meet customer demand and ported JFS to linux so that they had a common > >>>filesystem irrespective of OS. > >>> > >>>In both cases, the porting was done or directed by the origionator of the > >>>filesystem for reasons that impact their bottom line. To some extent > >>>their reputations are on the line with their filesystems. As they are > >>>right now, I would trust them both equally well. They each have their > >>>stronger points that make one more suitable than the other for certain > >>>uses of the filesystem. > >>> > >> > >>I would too, until I found out JFS has no maintainer. > >> > > > >Yikes. The jfsutils copyright and README.Debian are internally dated in > >2001 as if they are old packages. However, the changelog.Debian.gz and > >changelog.gz are June, 2006. xfsprogs have more recent changes. Stefan > >Hornburg is listed as "responsible for this Debian package". > > > >What exactly do you mean that JFS has no maintainer. > > It has a maintainer, but he cannot work on it full-time: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:11:06 -0500 > From: Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: bonnie++ benchmarks for ext2,ext3,ext4,jfs,reiserfs,xfs, > zfs on software raid 5 > > On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 10:29 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > >Overall JFS seems the fastest but reviewing the mailing list for JFS it > >seems like there a lot of problems, especially when people who use JFS > > 1 > >year, their speed goes to 5 MiB/s over time and the defragfs tool has > been > >removed(?) from the source/Makefile and on Google it says not to use it > >due to corruption. > > The defragfs tool was an unported holdover from OS/2, which is why it > was removed. There never was a working Linux version. I have some > ideas to improve jfs allocation to avoid fragmentation problems, but jfs > isn't my full-time job anymore, so I can't promise anything. I'm not > sure about the corruption claims. I'd like to hear some specifics on > that. > > Anyway, for enterprise use, I couldn't recommend jfs, since there is no > full-time maintainer. > > Thanks, > Shaggy > -- > David Kleikamp > IBM Linux Technology Center > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
