On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Gene Brandt wrote:
> Hey I've been watching the thread on and off. How large in the file
> system you are trying to share? What will it / they be used?
Home dirs which are low/medium bandwidth and other low bandwidth data.
Basically 3 individual NFS exports.
Curre
> Hey I've been watching the thread on and off. How large in the file system
> you are trying to share? What will it / they be used?
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-January/thread.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-January/104184.html
Hey I've been watching the thread on and off. How large in the file
system you are trying to share? What will it / they be used?
--
Thanks,
Gene Brandt SCSA
8625 Carriage Road
River Ridge, LA 70123
home 504-737-4295
cell 504-452-3250
Family Web Page | My Web Page | LinkedIn | Facebook |
On 1/12/11, compdoc wrote:
> I didn't bring up experimental software - I thought that's what he was
> using. I misread.
>
> And it worked quite well, except for write speeds. There are some cool
> features with zfs.
>
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/
As it stands,
16/25/100 TB ext/gfs2(HA)/x
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 08:42:55PM -0700, compdoc wrote:
> zfs-fuse.x86_64 is from epel - at least some users trust that repo.
EPEL is very trustworthy, but I for one wouldn't use ZFS fuse for
anything "Enterprise" (though I would use it for testing, or personal
use).
As an aside, a company calle
zfs-fuse.x86_64 is from epel - at least some users trust that repo.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:07 AM, compdoc wrote:
>> I never said it was native. zfs-fuse.x86_64
>>
>
> Not a Centos or a RHEL package. Please don't bring up experimental
> software in threads that are comparing filesystems for productio
I didn't bring up experimental software - I thought that's what he was
using. I misread.
And it worked quite well, except for write speeds. There are some cool
features with zfs.
Trying to decide just what file system to use for these larger and larger
arrays is something I've been facing very re
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:07 AM, compdoc wrote:
> I never said it was native. zfs-fuse.x86_64
>
Not a Centos or a RHEL package. Please don't bring up experimental
software in threads that are comparing filesystems for production use.
If you want to suggest ZFS, you should suggest that th
I never said it was native. zfs-fuse.x86_64
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 01/11/2011 08:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 08:51 AM, compdoc wrote:
> Lots of protection for your data? Let's see, super aggressive
> caching and
>>> no data journaling only metadata journaling, what on
On Jan 11, 2011, at 7:51 PM, "compdoc" wrote:
>>> Lots of protection for your data? Let's see, super aggressive caching and
> no data journaling only metadata journaling, what on earth are you
> blabbering about?
>
>>> Use XFS with anything that has no BBU cache support or barrier support and
>
On 01/11/2011 08:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 08:51 AM, compdoc wrote:
Lots of protection for your data? Let's see, super aggressive caching and
>> no data journaling only metadata journaling, what on earth are you
>> blabbering about?
>>
Use XFS with an
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 08:51 AM, compdoc wrote:
>>> Lots of protection for your data? Let's see, super aggressive caching and
> no data journaling only metadata journaling, what on earth are you
> blabbering about?
>
>>> Use XFS with anything that has no BBU cache support or barrier support
>>Lots of protection for your data? Let's see, super aggressive caching and
no data journaling only metadata journaling, what on earth are you
blabbering about?
>>Use XFS with anything that has no BBU cache support or barrier support and
recent files are toast when there is a crash or sudden power
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 02:55 AM, compdoc wrote:
> XFS is safe - lots of protection for your data, but it cuts write speeds in
> half.
When did XFS start looking like reiserfs?
Lots of protection for your data? Let's see, super aggressive caching
and no data journaling only metadata journ
- Original Message -
| On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
|
| > On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 at 1:49pm, Digimer wrote
| >
| >> On 01/11/2011 01:47 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
| >>> Hi all,
| >>>
| >>> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
| >>>
| >>> Wondering what you all
On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 01:47:33 pm aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
>
> Wondering what you all thought of using ext4 over XFS.
XFS. But make sure you're using a 64-bit CentOS. 32-bit CentOS (at least C5
of six months or so ago) will in fact run mkfs.xfs
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 at 11:12am, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote
> My RAID has a strip size of of 32KB and a block size of 512bytes.
>
> I've usually just done blind XFS formats but would like to tune it for
> smaller files. Of course big/small is relative but in my env, small
> means sub 300MB or so.
>
On 01/11/2011 11:07 AM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2011 10:56 AM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I read where ext4 supports 1EB partition size
>>
>> The format supports it - the e2fsprogs tools do not. 16TB is the
>> practical
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 at 1:49pm, Digimer wrote
>
>> On 01/11/2011 01:47 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
>>>
>>> Wondering what you all thought of using ext4 over XFS.
>>>
>>> I've bee
On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On 01/11/2011 10:56 AM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I read where ext4 supports 1EB partition size
>
> The format supports it - the e2fsprogs tools do not. 16TB is the
> practical limit.
>
Have you installed e4fsprogs?
- aurf
__
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:47 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
>
> Wondering what you all thought of using ext4 over XFS.
>
> I've been a big XFS fan for years as I'm an Irix transplant but would
> like your opinions.
>
> This 30TB drive will be an NFS exported asse
I use ext4 on my tiny 8TB arrays. Centos 5.5 does support it, although the
gui tools have small issues with it.
Centos 6 should support it better...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 01/11/2011 10:56 AM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I read where ext4 supports 1EB partition size
The format supports it - the e2fsprogs tools do not. 16TB is the
practical limit.
--
Benjamin Franz
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://l
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 at 1:49pm, Digimer wrote
> On 01/11/2011 01:47 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
>>
>> Wondering what you all thought of using ext4 over XFS.
>>
>> I've been a big XFS fan for years as I'm an Irix transplant but would
>> like
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Digimer wrote:
> On 01/11/2011 01:47 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
>>
>> Wondering what you all thought of using ext4 over XFS.
>>
>> I've been a big XFS fan for years as I'm an Irix transplant but would
>> like
XFS is safe - lots of protection for your data, but it cuts write speeds in
half.
Ext4 does not slow things down...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 01/11/2011 01:47 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've a 30TB hardware based RAID array.
>
> Wondering what you all thought of using ext4 over XFS.
>
> I've been a big XFS fan for years as I'm an Irix transplant but would
> like your opinions.
>
> This 30TB drive will be an NFS
29 matches
Mail list logo
