SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

June 2006

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Miles O'Neal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Miles O'Neal <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:55:39 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
After perusing the last year's archives I see
little consensus about filesystems other than
an agreement that the easy, safe thing to do
is use ext3.

We can't use that on a file server; we have
absolute requirements of more than 32K directory
entries at one level in a directory.  This is
required by certain applications we use; there's
no way around it.

Our tier 1 filer (NetApp) has no limits on
directory entries.  But we need to migrate
older projects to tier 2 (cheap) storage.
These projects have directories that ext{2,3}
can't handle.

BUT... it's not clear to me how safe or easy
it is to use XFS, JFS or ResierFS.  (I know
Michael Mansour gave up on XFS.)

So I would love to hear from any of you who
have been using another FS for, say, at least
three months.  Which one, what did you do to
make it work, how well does it work?  I am
interested in both good and bad experiences.

Thanks.  I thought I had brought this up here
before, but didn't see it in my email archives.

-Miles

ATOM RSS1 RSS2