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 12-08-2009, 12:03 PM
Chan Chung Hang Christopher
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Timo Schoeler wrote:
> thus Chan Chung Hang Christopher spake:
>
>> Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>
>>> thus Christopher Chan spake:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ian Forde wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always avoided XFS because A) it wsan't supported natively in
>>>>>>> RHEL
>>>>>>> anyways, and B) I've heard far too many stories about catastrophic
>>>>>>> loss
>>>>>>> problems and day long FSCK sessions after power failures [1] or what
>>>>>>> have you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've both heard about and experienced first-hand data loss (pretty
>>>>>> severe actually, some incidents pretty recent) with XFS after power
>>>>>> failure. It used to be great for performance (not so great now that
>>>>>> Ext4
>>>>>> is on the rise), but reliability was never its strong point. The
>>>>>> bias on
>>>>>> this list is surprising and unjustified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Given that I stated my experience with XFS, and my rationale for using
>>>>> it in *my* production environment, I take exception to your calling
>>>>> said experience unjustified.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The thing is that none of you ever stated how XFS was used. With
>>>> hardware raid or software raid or lvm or memory disk...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Speaking for me (on Linux systems) on top of LVM on top of md. On IRIX
>>> as it was intended.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That is a disaster combination for XFS even now.
>>
>
> (Not company critical stuff -- just my 2nd workstation, the one to mess
> around with; however, I didn't have problems yet -- what, of course,
> should nobody invite do test it [on critical data]...!)
>
>

Oh, nevermind.

>> You mentioned some
>> pretty hefty hardware in your other post...
>>
>
> Which do you mean?
>

EMC2 storage...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Miguel Medalha wrote:
> I am about to install a new server running CentOS 5.4. The server will
> contain pretty critical data that we can't afford to corrupt.
>

Just for the record, Theodore Ts'o marked ext4 as stable and ready for
general usage more than one year ago [1]. On 25 December 2008 kernel
2.6.28 was released with ext4 considered ready for production. So, ext4
is not _that_ new anymore. One year latter that Fedora 12 and Ubuntu
9.10 began using ext4 as default.

I believe for 5.5 or even on 5.6, ext4 will not be a tech preview
anymore. Considering that RH has extended the support so much, and how
ext3 is so limited with the current and future disk's capacities (fsck
on a 1TB volume is not funny). The current ext4 module is close to the
one on 2.6.29 plus lots of fixes [2]

[1]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=03010a3350301baac2154fa66de925a e2981b7e3
[2] rpm -q --changelog kernel|grep ext4
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-09-2009, 05:51 PM
Thomas Harold
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

On 12/9/2009 12:23 PM, Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho wrote:
> Miguel Medalha wrote:
>> I am about to install a new server running CentOS 5.4. The server will
>> contain pretty critical data that we can't afford to corrupt.
>>
>
> Just for the record, Theodore Ts'o marked ext4 as stable and ready for
> general usage more than one year ago [1]. On 25 December 2008 kernel
> 2.6.28 was released with ext4 considered ready for production. So, ext4
> is not _that_ new anymore. One year latter that Fedora 12 and Ubuntu
> 9.10 began using ext4 as default.
>
> I believe for 5.5 or even on 5.6, ext4 will not be a tech preview
> anymore. Considering that RH has extended the support so much, and how
> ext3 is so limited with the current and future disk's capacities (fsck
> on a 1TB volume is not funny). The current ext4 module is close to the
> one on 2.6.29 plus lots of fixes [2]
>
> [1]
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=03010a3350301baac2154fa66de925a e2981b7e3
> [2] rpm -q --changelog kernel|grep ext4

My leaning is that 5.4 would be a bit too soon for production data,
unless you have a very specific need and very good backups. But it's
darned close to ready.

Waiting until 5.5 or 5.6 (or 6.0) or at least waiting until next spring
sounds like a reasonable middle ground. That gives the Ubuntu and FC
hordes time to beat on it in less controlled settings.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:06 PM
Morten Torstensen
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

On 05.12.2009 18:15, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>> And, as of CentOS 5.4, xfs is now enabled in the kernel, so
>> no need for any external kernel module. But yes, this is available for
>> x86_64 only
>
> ... a decision that many people have trouble at understanding!

XFS is not stable on 32-bit systems. You should not use it there. You
need a 64-bit kernel.

Default for servers should be 64-bit now anyway. Not many reasons left
for a 32-bit system, and more and more 3. party applications have less
and less support for 32-bit platforms in general.

--

//Morten Torstensen
//Email: morten@mortent.org
//IM: morten.torstensen@gmail.com

I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer
Poland.
-- Woody Allen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:11 PM
Morten Torstensen
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

On 05.12.2009 22:04, John R Pierce wrote:
> that same OS/2 JFS was backported to AIX as JFS2, I believe.

When JFS was implemented on OS/2 it was based on JFS on AIX. After that,
JFS for Linux and JFS2 was based on the same code. Not sure I would say
"backported", but there you go....

There are many differences between JFS and JFS2 on AIX and the latter is
better in many ways... more tuning and support for shrinking.

--

//Morten Torstensen
//Email: morten@mortent.org
//IM: morten.torstensen@gmail.com

I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer
Poland.
-- Woody Allen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:14 PM
Morten Torstensen
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

On 08.12.2009 13:34, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> Speaking for me (on Linux systems) on top of LVM on top of md. On IRIX
>> as it was intended.
>>
> That is a disaster combination for XFS even now. You mentioned some
> pretty hefty hardware in your other post...

If XFS doesn't play well with LVM, how can it even be an option? I
couldn't live without LVM...

--

//Morten Torstensen
//Email: morten@mortent.org
//IM: morten.torstensen@gmail.com

I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer
Poland.
-- Woody Allen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:28 PM
Miguel Medalha
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

> XFS is not stable on 32-bit systems. You should not use it there. You
> need a 64-bit kernel.
>
> Default for servers should be 64-bit now anyway. Not many reasons left
> for a 32-bit system, and more and more 3. party applications have less
> and less support for 32-bit platforms in general.
>

That is for you rich people :-) Not everyone can afford the latest and
greatest server hardware. There are tons of older servers out there. I
still manage some servers with only 2GB of RAM and some of their
motherboards accept a *maximum* of 4GB. Those precious few GB are better
used with a 32bit OS, don't you agree?

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:43 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Miguel Medalha wrote:
>> XFS is not stable on 32-bit systems. You should not use it there. You
>> need a 64-bit kernel.
>>
>> Default for servers should be 64-bit now anyway. Not many reasons left
>> for a 32-bit system, and more and more 3. party applications have less
>> and less support for 32-bit platforms in general.
>>
>
> That is for you rich people :-) Not everyone can afford the latest and
> greatest server hardware. There are tons of older servers out there. I
> still manage some servers with only 2GB of RAM and some of their
> motherboards accept a *maximum* of 4GB. Those precious few GB are better
> used with a 32bit OS, don't you agree?

If they do what you want without making you wait, why even consider changing the
filesystem that has been working for years on these machines?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:52 PM
Miguel Medalha
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

> If they do what you want without making you wait, why even consider changing the
> filesystem that has been working for years on these machines?
>

Adding new, bigger disks and new filesystems? Wanting these to be the
fastest that is reasonably possible?
As for the system that arose the question (again) for me, I've decided
to make it ext3, wait for a while as ext4 matures, and convert it later.
This interesting possibility made me decide for ext3 (again).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-10-2009, 09:18 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Is ext4 safe for a production server?

Miguel Medalha wrote:
>> If they do what you want without making you wait, why even consider changing the
>> filesystem that has been working for years on these machines?
>>
>
> Adding new, bigger disks and new filesystems? Wanting these to be the
> fastest that is reasonably possible?
> As for the system that arose the question (again) for me, I've decided
> to make it ext3, wait for a while as ext4 matures, and convert it later.
> This interesting possibility made me decide for ext3 (again).

The only thing that can make filesystems fast is buffering in RAM so you'd
probably want to match up that increase in disk space with lots more RAM,
especially if you use a filesystem that needs it for the improvements it claims.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05 AM.

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