On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:14:24AM -0700, MHR wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Ross S. W. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Assuming you still want those all-in-one file systems then you
> > may want to look at JFS as I have heard good things about both
> > it's stability and perfor
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Ross S. W. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Assuming you still want those all-in-one file systems then you
> may want to look at JFS as I have heard good things about both
> it's stability and performance.
>
> Is there anyone running JFS currently that can attes
Bent Terp wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Johnny Hughes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would also not use XFS in production ... but that is just me.
>
> Interesting, I thought that XFS was fairly safe for use. What would
> you recommend for filesystems in the 50-500 terabyte range?
Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Bent Terp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting, I thought that XFS was fairly safe for use. What would
you recommend for filesystems in the 50-500 terabyte range?
I would recommend you split it in several smaller (2-4TB) filesystems
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Bent Terp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting, I thought that XFS was fairly safe for use. What would
> you recommend for filesystems in the 50-500 terabyte range?
I would recommend you split it in several smaller (2-4TB) filesystems.
Most applications would su
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would also not use XFS in production ... but that is just me.
Interesting, I thought that XFS was fairly safe for use. What would
you recommend for filesystems in the 50-500 terabyte range?
(And yes, we do actually run a
6 matches
Mail list logo
