SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

February 2009

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:
KELEMEN Peter <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
KELEMEN Peter <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:01:11 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
* Bob Barton ([log in to unmask]) [20090217 09:55]:

Bob,

> I am setting up a 2 TB file system to use for AFS volumes on an
> AFS file server and I am wondering which file system I should
> use - XFS or ext3.  I plan to use Scientific Linux 5.1 or 5.2
> x86_64 as the operating system on the file server machine.

We're running a few terabytes of AFS scratch space on XFS, no
major issues so far.

1. Make sure that you optimize your XFS layout for small files
(and underlying RAID layout if you use something else than
mirrors).  This is what we use for 500G partitions:

	mkfs.xfs -d agcount=8,unwritten=1 -i size=256,align=1 -n size=16384 -l version=2,size=128m

2. Make sure your /vicepX partitions have maxed out log mount
options (inode64 for 64-bit systems):

	noatime,logbsize=256k,logbufs=8,inode64

3. If you can handle the operational burden of keeping track of
external logs for your filesystems, I can only recommend it, makes
AFS fly.

4. Finally, you should be prepared to hold the pieces together
if it falls apart.  XFS in SL is not exactly supported by any
commercial entity nor the XFS developer community.

HTH,
Peter

-- 
    .+'''+.         .+'''+.         .+'''+.         .+'''+.         .+''
 Kelemen Péter     /       \       /       \     [log in to unmask]
.+'         `+...+'         `+...+'         `+...+'         `+...+'

ATOM RSS1 RSS2