FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-29-2008, 08:36 PM
Michael Kress
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Hello,

I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems
with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is
included in the 5.2 live cd?


Later on I'm planning to install a new system with xen, 3ware 9550SX-4LP
and xfs. The xen domains are of course located on xfs partitions.
Do these features come with the standard dvd or do I have to build a
custom kernel for that?


Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with
moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).


Thanks in advance
Regards
Michael

--
Michael Kress, kress@hal.saar.de
http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net
P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-29-2008, 08:40 PM
Florin Andrei
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Michael Kress wrote:


I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems
with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is
included in the 5.2 live cd?


Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and
you'll figure it out quickly.


Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with
moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).


Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different
scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS
will perform better than another.


XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with
large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you
want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.


--
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-29-2008, 08:48 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Michael Kress wrote:

Hello,

I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems
with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is
included in the 5.2 live cd?




I do not know if the standard xfs modules in extras will work or not.
You can boot the CD and try to install them.


Later on I'm planning to install a new system with xen, 3ware 9550SX-4LP
and xfs. The xen domains are of course located on xfs partitions.
Do these features come with the standard dvd or do I have to build a
custom kernel for that?




There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you
can install them for the main kernel.


Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with
moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).


XFS is not supported by Red Hat ... and it does not recover from loss of
power very well. The only way I would recommend XFS is if your have
tried to run it on ext3 and it will not work without the performance
increase you can get with XFS. (All the performance in the world does
not matter if you loose your partition on a loss of power).



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-29-2008, 08:51 PM
Bill Campbell
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Michael Kress wrote:
>>
>> I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file
>> systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
>> So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is
>> included in the 5.2 live cd?
>
> Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and
> you'll figure it out quickly.
>
>> Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
>> still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
>> better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with
>> moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
>
> Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different
> scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS
> will perform better than another.
>
> XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with
> large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you
> want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.

While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on
several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new
installations as ``yum update' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now
fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.

I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with
extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
Fax: (206) 232-9186

Perhaps, when committing your first federal crime, it would be unwise to
slap your name and address on it and mail it to 10,000 people. --Dogbert
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-29-2008, 08:55 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Bill Campbell wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:

Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file
systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is
included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and
you'll figure it out quickly.


Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with
moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different
scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS
will perform better than another.


XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with
large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you
want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.


While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on
several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new
installations as ``yum update' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now
fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.

I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with
extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.


You should be able to update the xfs modules ... they are in the repo
(at least for 5.2 ... 5.1 is not going to get any updates any more and
is moving to vault soon);


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-29-2008, 09:07 PM
Bill Campbell
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bill Campbell wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
>>> Michael Kress wrote:
>>>> I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file
>>>> systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
>>>> So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs
>>>> is included in the 5.2 live cd?
>>> Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards
>>> and you'll figure it out quickly.
>>>
>>>> Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is
>>>> it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you
>>>> have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail
>>>> server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo
>>>> little).
>>> Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different
>>> scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given
>>> FS will perform better than another.
>>>
>>> XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with
>>> large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if
>>> you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
>>
>> While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on
>> several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new
>> installations as ``yum update' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now
>> fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.
>>
>> I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with
>> extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
>
> You should be able to update the xfs modules ... they are in the repo
> (at least for 5.2 ... 5.1 is not going to get any updates any more and
> is moving to vault soon);

Let's see now, CentOS is supposed to be an Enterprise distribution (or at
least a clone of one), but updates for something that's been out for about
6 months (5.1) won't be available? Is this because the ``upstream' isn't
providing updates?

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
Fax: (206) 232-9186

You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a
chance to have their fair say. -- Bill Clinton, May 29, 1993, The White House
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-29-2008, 09:15 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Bill Campbell wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Johnny Hughes wrote:

Bill Campbell wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:

Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file
systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs
is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards
and you'll figure it out quickly.


Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is
it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you
have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail
server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo
little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different
scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given
FS will perform better than another.


XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with
large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if
you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.

While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on
several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new
installations as ``yum update' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now
fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.

I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with
extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
You should be able to update the xfs modules ... they are in the repo
(at least for 5.2 ... 5.1 is not going to get any updates any more and
is moving to vault soon);


Let's see now, CentOS is supposed to be an Enterprise distribution (or at
least a clone of one), but updates for something that's been out for about
6 months (5.1) won't be available? Is this because the ``upstream' isn't
providing updates?


No, it is because 5.1 is not the distro .. centos-5 is.

5.0, 5.1, 5.2 are update sets for centos-5.

(much like service pack 2 or service pack 3 for WinXP to use a windows
analogy)


You have CentOS-5, and it is updated to a certain level. If you run
yum, it will be updated to latest version .. just like if you do an
update with RHEL, you will get all the latest packages.


So ... CentOS-5 was at one time 5.0, then 5.1 and now 5.2.

This is covered a massive amount of times every update set.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-30-2008, 02:32 AM
Michael Kress
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Johnny Hughes wrote:


There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you
can install them for the main kernel.



Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff.
At least I know now that I can use standard means that are really
updateable via 'yum update' and it's only a matter of a) enabling the
repo centosplus, b) installing the kernel, c) rebooting and that's it. Cool.


No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?



Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server
with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).


XFS is not supported by Red Hat ... and it does not recover from loss
of power very well. The only way I would recommend XFS is if your
have tried to run it on ext3 and it will not work without the
performance increase you can get with XFS. (All the performance in
the world does not matter if you loose your partition on a loss of
power).





Indeed, I already had some poweroffs and I think I can be lucky that my
3ware 9550SX-4LP has a cache battery. Knock-on-wood, there wasn't any
severe catastrophe yet.


Another question: Can I also find 'quota' in the standard kernel?
That would make the thing perfect.

Thanx for your answers
Michael

--
Michael Kress, kress@hal.saar.de
http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net
P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-30-2008, 09:10 AM
"William L. Maltby"
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 04:32 +0200, Michael Kress wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> > There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you
> > can install them for the main kernel.
>
>
> Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff.
> At least I know now that I can use standard means that are really
> updateable via 'yum update' and it's only a matter of a) enabling the
> repo centosplus, b) installing the kernel, c) rebooting and that's it. Cool.

Don't forget to install yum-utils (if not already done) and set
priorities for the repos you use. This will keep the additional repos
components from overwriting base components.

>
> No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?

All that I've read on the lists here indicates that the plus kernel is
safe for production. IIRC, it just has some stuff configured in that is
not configured by upstream.

> <snip>

> Another question: Can I also find 'quota' in the standard kernel?
> That would make the thing perfect.
>
> Thanx for your answers
> Michael
>

--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-30-2008, 11:29 AM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default xfs on 5.2 (live cd + dvd)

Michael Kress wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you
>> can install them for the main kernel.
>
>
> Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff.

EXTRAS. CentOS EXTRAS for xfs. No need to enable centosplus for it.

> No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?

Use CentOS extras *and* the "normal" kernel.

Cheers,

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org