[rescue] Oracle making just a little harder to keep old machines in use
mailinglists at sysop.ca
Fri May 7 11:04:59 CDT 2010
At $WORK we have several PB of SAN that's formatted with XFS and
attached to Linux front ends. It's used for storing huge volumes of
compute data from our clusters before it's output to archival formats.
We've actually had more data loss and file system problems with EXT3
than with XFS. Recent 2.6 kernels seem to have pretty decent XFS
support. It's been nothing but reliable for us anyway.
On 5/7/2010 8:57 AM, Ethan O'Toole wrote:
>> Red Hat or XFS? And if XFS, out of curiosity, what were the problems?
> XFS. They chose it because at the time it was the only thing that could
> meet their performance. They had issues with kernel panics at random,
> and it was difficult getting a solution. Obviously speeds increased on
> systems in that budget.
>> About all I recall having heard about XFS compared to other filesystems
>> is that it's optimized for sustained streaming reads and great for
>> things like video, but deletes are very slow compared to most other
>> filesystems (though not as slow or as demanding of CPU as Reiser).
> It met their speed needs, which was likely to be writing data coming
> from scientific equipment. Just a steady stream of info for a few days
> at a time.
> .-[ Ethan O'Toole ]--------+ - - - - - - - - - +----.
> : FLICKR http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethanotoole :
> : HOMEPAGE " users.757.org/~ethan .
> `----------+ - - - - - - - - - +-----------=======--'
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
More information about the rescue