On Mon, May 05, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
>Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
>>
>>jfs is
>>supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a
>>mail/news server
>
>Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that
>situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed
Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >
> > jfs is
> > supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a
> > mail/news server
>
> Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that
> situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is
supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a
mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that
situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
_
Jim Perrin wrote:
Personal experiences may vary.
Yup. Do your own tests, involving your particular situation, then draw
conclusions. The average may just not apply very well in your case.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
___
CentOS mailin
Florin Andrei wrote:
Martyn Drake wrote:
Having worked for a large film and television post-production facility
in London for just over six years, XFS has been the primary filesystem
for all our servers. Much of the data was split across multiple disk
servers - each with around 2-3Tb of data.
Martyn Drake wrote:
Having worked for a large film and television post-production facility
in London for just over six years, XFS has been the primary filesystem
for all our servers. Much of the data was split across multiple disk
servers - each with around 2-3Tb of data. The whole filesystem
Monty Shinn wrote:
>
> Ross,
>
> We basically store video image sequences (edited and source) and
> audio/video files on our servers. We are an editing and broadcast
> design facility, doing mostly HD work. The files are relatively large,
> and there are a lot of them.
>
> I am trying to "m
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Monty Shinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We basically store video image sequences (edited and source) and
> audio/video files on our servers. We are an editing and broadcast design
> facility, doing mostly HD work. The files are relatively large, and there
> are
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Brent L. Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Florin Andrei had a typo in his message. No other file system
> will be as reliable as *XFS*. I've had XFS recover from system failures that
> Ext3 would/could not recover from. If you want dependability
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:36:41PM -0500, Monty Shinn wrote:
Greetings.
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to
successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use
mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating
I believe Florin Andrei had a typo in his message. No other file system
will be as reliable as *XFS*. I've had XFS recover from system failures that
Ext3 would/could not recover from. If you want dependability, reliability,
and also large file systems, only use XFS. You'll find none better
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Eduardo Silvestre
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:04 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ext3 filesystems larger than 8TB
But... Can i do that just with centos install cd and 3ware drivers
: "Ray Van Dolson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: centos@centos.org
Sent: Sexta-feira, 2 de Maio de 2008 21H15m GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ext3 filesystems larger than 8TB
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > I t
Monty Shinn wrote:
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to
successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use
mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3
filesystems.
If ext3 isn't an option, has anyone used the kmod-xfs-s
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:40:21PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > > I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB.
> > > > However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such.
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB.
> > > However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly
> > > related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid con
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB.
> > However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly
> > related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued
> > troubleshooting we
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:36:41PM -0500, Monty Shinn wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to
> > successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use
> > mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:36:41PM -0500, Monty Shinn wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to
> successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use
> mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3
> filesyst
On Fri, 2 May 2008 at 2:36pm, Monty Shinn wrote
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to
successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use
mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
I looked at the specs for 5
20 matches
Mail list logo
