Re: ext3 on woody safe for a production machine?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:49:45AM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
> I am a newbie ftp-administrator trying to build a new ftp-server for
> our university.
>
> Setup:
>
> Compaq Proliant 3700
> Redhat 7.1 (currently with 2.4.9 kernel)
> Three other machines each with 4x40g IDE hard disks. They are Enbd
> servers with the Compaq as client. The Compaq as ftp-server then use
> the nbd-devices as storage giving us just less than 480G of space.
>
> While testing the software and hardware we had the following problems
> so far:
>
> Kernel unstability with 2.4.9-ac3, ac16 and ac18 and some of
> unstability using reiserfs on the nbd-devices. We did not determine
> whether the problem was on the kernel's side or from reiserfs in
> combination with nbd.
>
> Now I want to try ext3 on the nbd-devices. The reason is that
> fsck'ing the 12 nbd-devices takes a lot of time. A journalling file
> system can help. I have 6 unofficial woody CD's and I see that
> ext3-utilities are part of woody (which is not the case with Redhat
> 7.1 which most of the machines here use).
>
> What are the experiences in this group with woody and ext3? Would you
> recommend it for a setup like ours?
I use it at home, works fine. Didn't stress test it though. I guess it's
quite stable since it's mainly based on ext2, which is around for quite
some time.
Have you considdered XFS yet? It's comparable with reiserfs regarding
speed (and like reiserfs faster than ext[23] for some operations). IIRC
XFS' main purpose was for file servers. I don't know how stable XFS is
though.
more info: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
A file system benchmark with XFS, Reiserfs and ext2 (performance nearly
same as ext3): http://bulmalug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=642
--
,-------------------------------------------.
> Name: Alson van der Meulen <
> Personal: alson@flutnet.org <
> School: alson@gymnasiumleiden.nl <
`-------------------------------------------'
The drive ate the tape but that's OK, I brought my screwdriver.
---------------------------------------------
Reply to: