3 ms·
Yep, than go looking at xFS commits history, mailing list activities, websites (sgi site dead, xfs.org abandoned)... It's "live" in the sense that's bugfixed wh
by xte 8y ago
Yep, than go looking at xFS commits history, mailing list activities, websites (sgi site dead, xfs.org abandoned)... It's "live" in the sense that's bugfixed when bug spot around but there is essentially ZERO new futures, even in 2015 one of it's lead devs say it's legacy, damn that I do not find a video of the talk...
If you have to choose today a classic, rock solid, battle-tested fs than xFS can be the best remaining choice on GNU/Linux. Nilfs2 is too little used and known to be "battle tested" and it's development it's extremely slow. But the rest is only experiments, bugsware, legacy or specific-purpose storage, nothing more.
- the_why_of_y 8y agoA couple minutes with a search engine finds several articles on new features such as "XFS online filesystem scrubbing and repair" [1][2], as well as plans for a substantial interface rework to implement subvolumes and snapshots [3], from this year. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/754504/ https://lwn.net/Articles/754504/ [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/753480/ https://lwn.net/Articles/753480/ [3] https://lwn.net/Articles/747633/ https://lwn.net/Articles/747633/
- xte 8y agoSo I assume that someone still want to keep it up, however if an ancient core developer, years ago (2015) already depict the project as at a dead end... IMO it's only a way to keep up something that's needed awaiting for alternatives, do not forget how many reason, many like Andrew Morton and his "rampant layer violation" when he first meed zfs...