From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).



perhaps tell what XFS stands for? AzaToth 18:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it stands for 'X File System', where X=$VALUE, of course! But I assume that the X may be a character selected with little significance. Freedomlinux 04:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that it stands for something like ‘extensible’, with reference to its provisions for high capacity and/or its support of extended attributes. Just a vague recollection, I haven't tried to verify it.
Pjrm (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just chanced upon the following:
“The original XFS design was circulated within SGI in October 1993 as ‘xFS: the extension of EFS’. … ‘x’ for to-be-determined (but the name stuck)” —XFS ondisk format,, accessed 2007-12-09.
I.e. (as I understand it) ‘X’ didn't stand for a word, it was just a placeholder until a name was chosen. If there's anything to my “vague recollection”, then it would have been a post-hoc justification for the ‘X’.
I haven't updated the article to include this.
Pjrm (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Very poor content[edit]

"XFS is particularly proficient at handling large files and at offering smooth data transfers."

This unsourced sentence is also unexplained. What exactly does smooth mean and how large is large? -- (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is the intro to the article, unexplained, and unsourced, I'm changing this with factual information contained later in the article, which also is what sets XFS apart from most, if not all, contemporary filesystems, which is internal parallelism. Hardwarefreak (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not very unexplained - XFS was, in its earlier incarnations, designed by SGI for handling what were then very large files, often streaming data to devices that dealt poorly with buffer underrun type issues. The guaranteed rate IO was all about providing smooth transfers or large files, and was mostly about the ability to stream reads or writes on arbitrarily large files. The parallelism was there as an implementation route to meeting those design aims. Hard guarantees on ratio IO are largely academic today, as XFS is no longer mostly found on Irix systems with hardware support for these features in the storage layers. The original sentence provided a better view of the rationale involved in XFS design than the current wording, though this should perhaps be extended now to point out that the use case for XFS on Linux today is not quite the same as the common workloads encountered on Irix systems in the early 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Historical user complaints[edit]

I renamed the "Comparison" section to the above. Prior to that it was named "Disadvantages". I removed the entry with the link to the Phoronix benchmark article because it is not relevant to this section, and simply not relevant to the XFS article. The reference to EXT4 WRT Delayed Logging is to demonstrate the relative improvement of XFS metadata performance, as EXT3/4 always had the fastest single threaded metadata performance. It does not make a claim that XFS is "faster" or "slower" than EXT4, but simply establishes context. It is not appropriate to "rebut" this as was done with the Phoronix addition. And in fact adding such benchmark references to any of the filesystem articles is not appropriate, especially given than the various filesystems leapfrog one another WRT performance over time, due to kernel bugs, etc. Hardwarefreak (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! To me, "Disadvantages" is a much better section title, as "Historical user complaints" title would suit better to a subsection of the XFS § History section, while the content simply doesn't fit there. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on XFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)