[Beowulf] Rackable / SGI
Andrew M.A. Cater
amacater at galactic.demon.co.uk
Sat Apr 4 06:38:45 PDT 2009
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:15:06PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> Mark Hahn wrote:
>> from my position, XFS was a semi-fringe option for people who
>> distrusted ext3 for some reason. (and there were a few solid ones,
>> mainly just >8TB.) going forward, I expect to use ext4
> I wouldn't use ext3 for anything other than small partitions (100 GB or
> so). Too many cases seeing the fsck need to get triggered for some
> reason ... the wait is horrible.
Interesting. Since I'm stuck using Red Hat and IBM, I've been hit by
this on a 10TB storage shelf. Red Hat will only offer me ext3 and 8TB.
IBM storage on a Megaraid card which handles the disks as one physical
[Debian would offer me more, since Debian 5 will format to greater than
8TB - and other file systems.]
I just want a 10TB "bucket" in which to store slowly changing/increasing
files and I'm in a datacentre with UPS so I'm not too worried about the
fsck - until it happens of course.
> I don't see many people moving hundreds of TB off XFS onto something
> without a really good reason (and other people running into the other
> things bugs).
> Zfs is not the revealed word of some deity, in file systems. This mind
> set is painful to deal with, and often winds up with people having
> *very* unrealistic expectations of what it is, what it can do, and how
> it performs. Our experience in speaking to customers about it, suggests
> that the primary reason why there is interest in it, is ease of
> management. There are some who are interested in the data integrity
> bits. This said, it ain't perfect. It has bugs, and people have been
> bitten by them.
Amen, brother :)
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
More information about the Beowulf