Bryan Duxbury wrote:
We use XFS for our data drives, and we've had somewhat mixed results.
Thanks for that. I've just created a wiki page to put some of these
notes up -extensions and some hard data would be welcome
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/DiskSetup
One problem we have for hard data
gt; Anshuman
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bryan Duxbury"
> To: core-user@hadoop.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:50:57 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: Optimal Filesystem (and Settings) for HDFS
>
> We use XFS for our data drives
human
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Duxbury"
To: core-user@hadoop.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:50:57 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Optimal Filesystem (and Settings) for HDFS
We use XFS for our data drives, and we've had somewhat mixed results.
We use XFS for our data drives, and we've had somewhat mixed results.
One of the biggest pros is that XFS has more free space than ext3,
even with the reserved space settings turned all the way to 0.
Another is that you can format a 1TB drive as XFS in about 0 seconds,
versus minutes for ex
On 5/18/09 11:33 AM, "Edward Capriolo" wrote:
> Do not forget 'tune2fs -m 2'. By default this value gets set at 5%.
> With 1 TB disks we got 33 GB more usable space. Talk about instant
> savings!
Yup. Although, I think we're using -m 1.
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alex Loddengaard w
Do not forget 'tune2fs -m 2'. By default this value gets set at 5%.
With 1 TB disks we got 33 GB more usable space. Talk about instant
savings!
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alex Loddengaard wrote:
> I believe Yahoo! uses ext3, though I know other people have said that XFS
> has performed bett
I believe Yahoo! uses ext3, though I know other people have said that XFS
has performed better in various benchmarks. We use ext3, though we haven't
done any benchmarks to prove its worth.
This question has come up a lot, so I think it'd be worth doing a benchmark
and writing up the results. I h
We are currently rebuilding our cluster - has anybody recommendations on
the underlaying file system? Just standard Ext3?
I could imagine that the block size could be larger than its default...
Thx for any tips,
Bob
