On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 07:42:30AM -0600, Robert L. Harris wrote: > > > Has XFS gone read-write? Last I heard it was still very experimental > and read only in the kernel. It has a revision > 1.0 and read-write support for quite some time now
See URL in my previous mail for more info > > Thus spake Paolo Falcone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > :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);' > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ,-------------------------------------------. > Name: Alson van der Meulen < > Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] < > School: [EMAIL PROTECTED] < `-------------------------------------------' What do you mean /home was on that disk? I umounted it! ---------------------------------------------
