Re: Filesystem recommendations
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
>
> Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
> reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
>
> I think you are confusing what is with what should be.
A'ight, you forced me to pull out the big gun. Choke on it. The master
penguin himself, kernel.org, has run on XFS since 2008. Sorry for the body
slam. Is your back ok Mark? ;) Pretty sure I just "won" this discussion.
Err, actually, XFS wins. ;) BTW, the main Debian mirror in the U.S. is
actually housed in kernel.org last I checked. Thus, the files on your
system were very likely originally served from XFS.
The Linux Kernel Archives
"A bit more than a year ago (as of October 2008) kernel.org, in an ever
increasing need to squeeze more performance out of it's machines, made the
leap of migrating the primary mirror machines (mirrors.kernel.org) to XFS.
We site a number of reasons including fscking 5.5T of disk is long and
painful, we were hitting various cache issues, and we were seeking better
performance out of our file system."
"After initial tests looked positive we made the jump, and have been quite
happy with the results. With an instant increase in performance and
throughput, as well as the worst xfs_check we've ever seen taking 10
minutes, we were quite happy. Subsequently we've moved all primary mirroring
file-systems to XFS, including www.kernel.org , and mirrors.kernel.org. With
an average constant movement of about 400mbps around the world, and with
peaks into the 3.1gbps range serving thousands of users simultaneously it's
been a file system that has taken the brunt we can throw at it and held up
spectacularly."
http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Companies#The_Linux_Kernel_Archives
--
Stan
Reply to: