On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:15:06PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote: > Mark Hahn wrote: > >> from my position, XFS was a semi-fringe option for people who >> distrusted ext3 for some reason. (and there were a few solid ones, >> mainly just >8TB.) going forward, I expect to use ext4 > > I wouldn't use ext3 for anything other than small partitions (100 GB or > so). Too many cases seeing the fsck need to get triggered for some > reason ... the wait is horrible. >
Interesting. Since I'm stuck using Red Hat and IBM, I've been hit by this on a 10TB storage shelf. Red Hat will only offer me ext3 and 8TB. IBM storage on a Megaraid card which handles the disks as one physical volume [Debian would offer me more, since Debian 5 will format to greater than 8TB - and other file systems.] I just want a 10TB "bucket" in which to store slowly changing/increasing files and I'm in a datacentre with UPS so I'm not too worried about the fsck - until it happens of course. > > I don't see many people moving hundreds of TB off XFS onto something > without a really good reason (and other people running into the other > things bugs). > > Zfs is not the revealed word of some deity, in file systems. This mind > set is painful to deal with, and often winds up with people having > *very* unrealistic expectations of what it is, what it can do, and how > it performs. Our experience in speaking to customers about it, suggests > that the primary reason why there is interest in it, is ease of > management. There are some who are interested in the data integrity > bits. This said, it ain't perfect. It has bugs, and people have been > bitten by them. Amen, brother :) Andy > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
