RAID 4. (Widely used in SAN appliances such as NetApp's StoreVault line.)
--Todd
JD Gray wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:29 AM, "Todd M. Hébert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The major difference between 4 & 5 is being able to resize the RAID set on
the fly. (adding drives to the RAID pool witho
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:29 AM, "Todd M. Hébert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The major difference between 4 & 5 is being able to resize the RAID set on
> the fly. (adding drives to the RAID pool without having to completely
> rebuild it.)
Which can have disks added on the fly without rebuilding
A. Khattri wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008, Michelangelo wrote:
Besides, RAID 5 is not always a good choice: I got 2 adaptec and 3ware
cards
that got them bioses/nvram messed up thanks to power spikes during the
big
italian blackout back in 2003. And yes, they were behind online APC ups
We use
Whether the RAID is toast due to the loss of two drives depends on how many
drives you're striping the data across and how many parity drives you have.
With RAID 5, if you have 9 drives you end up with one dedicated for parity, and
the system should keep running with a loss of 2 drives without
2008/6/9 "Todd M. Hébert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We use RAID 1 on servers that are not file servers, RAID 4 or 5 on
> file-servers (depending on how much need for redundancy we have on a
Doesn't RAID 4 and 5 offer the same level of protection? I thought
the only difference was RAID4 had a dedica
We use RAID 1 on servers that are not file servers, RAID 4 or 5 on file-servers
(depending on how much need for redundancy we have on a particular filer) and
back up the RAID4/5 partitions to tape daily. (with the RAID 1's backed up to
the RAID 4/5's before those are backed-up to tape.) Tapes a
On Sat, 24 May 2008, Michelangelo wrote:
Besides, RAID 5 is not always a good choice: I got 2 adaptec and 3ware cards
that got them bioses/nvram messed up thanks to power spikes during the big
italian blackout back in 2003. And yes, they were behind online APC ups
We use RAID 1 but generally
Summing it up, IMHO.
- NTFS is not a choice, really, you wanna stay in linux land. Besides, you
would have to find some tool|workaround for defragmenting it :/
- reiserfs is not that manageable: as others said, it does not allow
recovery from filesystem damage (let alone from hd failure). Reiserfs
2008/5/24 A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Technical arguments aside, if you're serious about data loss and/or
> performance, you would be using hardware RAID anyway. 3ware cards are pretty
> cheap and the extra money is well worth it for peace of mind.
+1 for 3ware.
Also, the initial problem w
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Wendall Cada wrote:
Oli is correct. If reiser dies, the data is completely lost. It writes to
the journal first, then writes the data. That, and when it decides to
completely kill your B-Trees, you're screwed. After three unrecoverable
reiserfs issues, I moved over to ext3
widyachacra wrote:
what is the best filesystem for a server
Take http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388 for some facts.
Christian
--
gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Oliver Schad wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 schrieb mir Edward Muller:
reiserfs, purely from the recovery angle.
Yeah, if you have fuck up in the B-Trees, it's the best filesystem purely from
the rubbish heap's angle.
regards
Oli
Oli is correct. If reiser dies, the data is co
Am Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 schrieb mir Edward Muller:
> reiserfs, purely from the recovery angle.
Yeah, if you have fuck up in the B-Trees, it's the best filesystem purely from
the rubbish heap's angle.
regards
Oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
reiserfs, purely from the recovery angle.
Its also decently fast and really good with lots of small files.
On May 18, 2008, at 7:41 PM, widyachacra wrote:
what is the best filesystem for a server
--
---
PS: This is my private email address.
Budu saranay! Sadaham Phitay! Sangha Rekawaranay! {
Thilo Bangert wrote:
"Tomasz Lutelmowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
NTFS is the best one but unfortunately not fully supported by linux :/
last time i checked, NTFS (by default) cant create files named 'aux'
or 'con'... go figure!
that is the reason why i dislike it (apart from the one yo
"Tomasz Lutelmowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> NTFS is the best one but unfortunately not fully supported by linux :/
last time i checked, NTFS (by default) cant create files named 'aux'
or 'con'... go figure!
that is the reason why i dislike it (apart from the one you mention).
YMMV. why do
Assuming you speak about linux servers:
Ext3 is not the bleeding edge in speed when handling a lot of small
files (rather take xfs here) but fast for normal data structures, is
rock solid and it's journaling feature works great. I never had any
file system crash for years now, even when cold-h
NTFS is the best one but unfortunately not fully supported by linux :/
On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:11:17 +0530, widyachacra wrote
> what is the best filesystem for a server
>
> --
> ---
> PS: This is my private email address.
>
> Budu saranay! Sadaham Phitay! Sangha Rekawaranay! {Theruwan Saranay!}
widyachacra wrote:
what is the best filesystem for a server
As others have said, it really depends on what you want.
e.g. For a file server you likely want XFS.
Most servers probably still run ext3, the reason for this being that
it's very well understood and any tool for dealing with file
widyachacra wrote:
what is the best filesystem for a server
depends .. if your going to be housing alot (hundreds of thousands) of
smaller files, reiser would be good. ext3 is sufficient though.
--
gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
what is the best filesystem for a server
--
---
PS: This is my private email address.
Budu saranay! Sadaham Phitay! Sangha Rekawaranay! {Theruwan Saranay!}
- Widyachacra Rajapaksha -
--
gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
21 matches
Mail list logo
