Re: Re: ext3 on woody safe for a production machine?
Has XFS gone read-write? Last I heard it was still very experimental
and read only in the kernel.
Thus spake Paolo Falcone (fallenlordx@edsamail.com.ph):
>
> Alson van der Meulen wrote:
>
> >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
>
> Yes, go for XFS if you want a filesystem that handles big files
> satisfactorily (beats reiserfs when used with very big database files,
> as reiserfs goes best with _many_ small files as opposed to a few
> _very big_ files). I use reiserfs just for my /home partition, while
> the others are in XFS (so I can easily delete unwanted users, since
> reiserfs deletes very fast).
>
> Paolo Alexis Falcone
>
> __________________________________
> www.edsamail.com
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris | Micros~1 :
Senior System Engineer | For when quality, reliability
at RnD Consulting | and security just aren't
\_ that important!
DISCLAIMER:
These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else.
FYI:
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
Reply to: