I've been using the XFS contirbuted kernel RPMs for 4.1 for almost a year (4.0
prior to the yum upgrade with the same XFS contributed kernels).
I like XFS because of its speed (ext3 for it's reliability), so if XFS will
solve your large filesystem problems, then go for it. But note that XFS is not
known for it's "you'll never lose data" feature, but known for its speed. If
you want very high reliability, stick with ext3, although it is a little
slower (unless you tune it and cut out the redundancy features to be
comparable to XFS speeds - but then why use ext3?).
Regards,
Michael.
> Troy,
>
> Sigh! Unfortunately, I installed 4.1 on the system. I just did a
> mke2fs on the disk and all I got was 1 TB.
>
> Didn't 4.2 just come out? Is it beta? I'm trying to balance shelf-life
> against potential problems with a new OS. Basically, trying to
> minimize the amount of work I have to do. Any words of
> encourangement here?
>
> Yes, I agree that it would be nice to hear from folks with
> experience about the relative merits of "other" filesystems.
>
> Ken
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:43:07 -0600
> From: Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Ken Teh <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ext3, xfs, jfs on large partitions
>
> Ken Teh wrote:
> > I've just installed SL4.1 on a dual opteron 6.4TB disk array system. This is
> > my first disk array, so I'm full of questions. The disk array is configured
> > as one large disk partition. At 5.6TB, it's larger (according to what I've
> > read) than what ext3 can handle. So, I'm thinking of putting either JFS or
> > XFS on the system.
> >
> > SL4.1's stock kernel does not have built-in JFS nor XFS support. But there
> > is a contributed XFS rpm. Is this the preferred filesystem for large
> > partitions? If so, why?
> >
> > I don't know the history of XFS, but I first encountered JFS in the late 80s
> > when I worked on an AIX machine. Also, I read on the web that JFS has
> > better performance than XFS.
> >
> > Comments??
> >
> > Ken
>
> From the Scientific Linux 4.2 release notes
>
> o The current ext3 file system limit in Scientific Linux 4.2
> is 8 terabytes. The e2fsprogs package has been updated to
> adhere to this file system limit.
>
> So it looks like if you use S.L. 4.2 you should be ok with 4.2.
> (OK, so we haven't *officially* released it ... there is one file
> driving us nuts, but what's in 4.2 is really what's going to be
> released.)
>
> But the question about the other stuff I think would be good to be
> answered. But I'm not really the expert.
>
> This is what I've been told.
>
> XFS - good for very large files
> Reiser - good for lots of small files
>
> Well ... that's not very much information, but all I have at the moment.
>
> Troy
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468
> Fermilab ComputingDivision/CSS CSI Group
> __________________________________________________
------- End of Original Message -------
|
