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 03-08-2010, 01:55 PM
Nux
 
Default which FS is appropriate for a 2TB-sized partition?

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Alan Hoffmeister wrote:

> On 08/03/2010 09:53, Khusro Jaleel wrote:
>> Thanks to all of you for your help, and especially Tim Shubitz who faced the same problem and his solution worked perfectly for me.
>>
>> However, now that I have properly created a GPT partition of size 2.7TB, which filesystem is best on it? This filesystem will be used to
>> store backups of various other linux systems, so the files will be mostly small, however some systems do host big movie files and sometimes
>> SVN dumps, and DB dumps can get a little big. I am going to be using rsnapshot to do the backups, so perhaps I should be careful about the
>> number of inodes I create and try to maximise them?
>>
>> I am thinking of using XFS, but am not sure. I seem to have heard in the past that one should avoid EXT3 on such huge filesystems, but I can't
>> find a reference or proper justification for it. JFS is another option but then some mailing list threads online say it has lost data for them so I'm a
>> bit confused as to what is best to use in my scenario.
>>
>> As for XFS I have read that a UPS is necessary and this is not a problem since these machines are already connected to a UPS (and that UPS has
>> a backup as well).
>>
>> Any help appreciated, thanks,
>>
>> Khusro
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
> JFS.
> http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

Ext4 seems to be missing from that benchmark. I'd go ext4, imho.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 03-08-2010, 02:31 PM
Martin Jungowski
 
Default which FS is appropriate for a 2TB-sized partition?

If it helps: we're running several 10-15TB filesystems with ReiserFS and
never had even the slightest problem with it. The current limit, however,
is 16TB even for ext4. Or, to be more precise: the filesystem could
handle more than 16TB easily, however the tools necessary to create the
filesystem (aka mkfs.ext4) have a hard-coded 32-bit limit that's been
detected almost three years ago and has still not been fixed. Which
should not affect your 2.7TB partition tho

Martin


--
Rieke Computersysteme GmbH
Hellerholz 5
D-82061 Neuried
Email: martin@rhm.de

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 03-08-2010, 03:09 PM
Alan Hoffmeister
 
Default which FS is appropriate for a 2TB-sized partition?

On 08/03/2010 09:53, Khusro Jaleel wrote:
> Thanks to all of you for your help, and especially Tim Shubitz who faced the same problem and his solution worked perfectly for me.
>
> However, now that I have properly created a GPT partition of size 2.7TB, which filesystem is best on it? This filesystem will be used to
> store backups of various other linux systems, so the files will be mostly small, however some systems do host big movie files and sometimes
> SVN dumps, and DB dumps can get a little big. I am going to be using rsnapshot to do the backups, so perhaps I should be careful about the
> number of inodes I create and try to maximise them?
>
> I am thinking of using XFS, but am not sure. I seem to have heard in the past that one should avoid EXT3 on such huge filesystems, but I can't
> find a reference or proper justification for it. JFS is another option but then some mailing list threads online say it has lost data for them so I'm a
> bit confused as to what is best to use in my scenario.
>
> As for XFS I have read that a UPS is necessary and this is not a problem since these machines are already connected to a UPS (and that UPS has
> a backup as well).
>
> Any help appreciated, thanks,
>
> Khusro
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

JFS.
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 03-08-2010, 04:46 PM
Khusro Jaleel
 
Default which FS is appropriate for a 2TB-sized partition?

On 8 Mar 2010, at 16:09, Alan Hoffmeister wrote:
>
> JFS.
> http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

The article you linked to suggests XFS though? I'm also now thinking about EXT3 with a "mkfs.ext3 -T news" for example so that I get more inodes?

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 03-08-2010, 05:25 PM
Peter Kjellstrom
 
Default which FS is appropriate for a 2TB-sized partition?

On Monday 08 March 2010, Khusro Jaleel wrote:
> Thanks to all of you for your help, and especially Tim Shubitz who faced
> the same problem and his solution worked perfectly for me.
>
> However, now that I have properly created a GPT partition of size 2.7TB,
> which filesystem is best on it? This filesystem will be used to store
> backups of various other linux systems, so the files will be mostly small,
> however some systems do host big movie files and sometimes SVN dumps, and
> DB dumps can get a little big. I am going to be using rsnapshot to do the
> backups, so perhaps I should be careful about the number of inodes I create
> and try to maximise them?
>
> I am thinking of using XFS, but am not sure. I seem to have heard in the
> past that one should avoid EXT3 on such huge filesystems, but I can't find
> a reference or proper justification for it. JFS is another option but then
> some mailing list threads online say it has lost data for them so I'm a bit
> confused as to what is best to use in my scenario.

My thoughts on this are roughly:
* 2.7T isn't really big ext3,xfs,jfs,etc. should all be fine
* We've run XFS alot, but still, it's a lot less mainstream than ext3
* Ext4 is still a tech preview in 5.4
* We have alot of data on Lustre-style ext3 (in the range 4-8T), no issues

Boils down to: Use what you're comfortable with (XFS is typically faster for
us but ext3 certainly won't break down at this scale).

/Peter

> As for XFS I have read that a UPS is necessary and this is not a problem
> since these machines are already connected to a UPS (and that UPS has a
> backup as well).
>
> Any help appreciated, thanks,
>
> Khusro
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 PM.

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