Re: Storage server
On 09/09/2012 02:37 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:16 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Whjat? Are you talking crash recovery boot time "fsck"? With any modern
journaled FS log recovery is instantaneous. If you're talking about an
actual structure check, XFS is pretty quick regardless of inode count as
the check is done in parallel. I can't speak to EXTx as I don't use
them.
You should try an experiment and set up a terabyte ext3 and ext4 filesystem
and then perform a few crash recovery reboots of the system. It will
change your mind. :-)
As I've never used EXT3/4 and thus have no opinion, it'd be a bit difficult
to change my mind. That said, putting root on a 1TB filesystem is a brain
dead move, regardless of FS flavor. A Linux server doesn't need more than
5GB of space for root. With /var, /home/ and /bigdata on other filesystems,
crash recovery fsck should be quick.
In my case, / is a 100GB filesystem, and 36GB of it is in use - even with both
/var and /home on separate filesystems.
All but about 3GB of that is under /root (almost all of it in the form of manual
one-off backups), and could technically be stored elsewhere, but it made sense
to put it there since root is the one who's going to be working with it.
Yes, 100GB for / is way more than is probably necessary - but I've run up
against a too-small / in the past (with a 10GB filesystem), even when not
storing more than trivial amounts of data under /root, and I'd rather err on the
side of "too much" than "too little". Since I've got something like 7TB to play
with in total, 100GB didn't seem like too much space to potentially waste, for
the peace of mind of knowing I'd never run out of space on /. (And from the
current use level, it may not have really been wasted.)
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger
Reply to: