On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:38:39PM -0400, David Niklas via Dng wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:34:42 +0000
> > Why not XFS? It looks like most advanced, non-CoW, non-device-pool
> > filesystem for Linux. With reflinks, online fsck, blocksizes>pagesize
> > support it lacks nothing.
> >
> > Only disadvantage is that XFS had truncate-to-zero bug decades ago,
> > and people still forgot it was fixed log ago.
>
> To answer your question:
>
> SGI XFS with ACLs, security attributes, realtime, verbose warnings,
> quota, no debug enabled
> XFS (loop0): Mounting V5 Filesystem 6738a12c-380a-45f3-ad94-4fe9ad9ba412
> XFS (loop0): Ending clean mount
> xfs filesystem being mounted at /media/ supports timestamps until
> 2038-01-19 (0x7fffffff)
>
> xfs looks like it suffers from the 2038 bug.

More like year 2486 bug. Big timestamps were added 5 years ago
( https://www.phoronix.com/news/XFS-Linux-5.10 ).
Big timestamps are enabled by default for new filesystems as of xfsprogs 5.15.

-- 
Tomasz Torcz                        Once you’ve read the dictionary,
@ttorcz:pipebreaker.pl              every other book is just a remix.