[rescue] Oracle making just a little harder to keep old machines in use
Curtis H. Wilbar Jr.
rescue at hawkmountain.net
Fri May 7 23:56:02 CDT 2010
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.
I seem to recall reading something about XFS under Linux having
with 32 bit kernels.... but with 64 bit kernels it wasn't a problem...
but I can't at the
moment recall more specifics...
Work is currently using ext3... but other than the mailserver and misc
web, the local
filesystem is used mainly for booting and logging.... so there are not
performance demands... and at least we've never lost any data to ext3 ...
>> 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