[I left off CC'ing the universe on this one...]
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Andre Pang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 06:42:15PM -0500, Jason Titus wrote:
>
> > by highmem (all culled from the Linux Memory Management mailing list). All
> > of the >2GB file stuff is refereed to mostly as Large File Summit (LFS) not
> > to be confused with Log File System (LFS - no idea what it does. Some sort
> > of journal type thing).
Logging file systems are a (hard simplification) kind of journaling.
Basically, nobody is going to use a true logging filesystem these days -
the databases themselves do rollback. The other advantage to logging is
the part that is also a part of journaling, and journaling is thus more
general purpose. [Pleading for mercy, I'm not a heavy DB guy]
> *Maybe* it's possible that you don't have to run ext2 on Linux/RAID?
> If, for instance, FFS on Linux supported files >2GB (I have no idea if it
> does), I guess you could run that as the primary filesystem. You could port
> over the fsck etc. programs from BSD. Might be slower and possibly less
> reliable, but it might work.
Large files have to be supported in 3 places: kernel, libc, _and_ the FS.
> I know there are also Large File Summit patches around, but I haven't
> investigated them (I think the largest file I've got on my system is like
> 50meg :). I have no clue about this - maybe a post to linux-kernel would
> help.
My take from the kernel list is that the new style raid stuff shipping on
redhat and suse is rock solid in 2.2, but 2.3 is still shaky. There is not
that I know of a firm commitment to have new raid in the 2.4 kernel. :(
So, look for LFS back-ported to 2.2. Don't run production systems with 2.3
right now. Dark Evil awaits.
If anybody will have this soon, it'll probably be Suse due to their LVM
work. (Got enough TLA's yet?).
> Otherwise, if you can guarantee that you'll only have a few large files,
> you can always partition your hard drive and get the apps to write directly
> to /dev/sda5 instead of a file on a filesystem. But that's probably not
> very feasible.
Flee in terror.
> > Once again, any information about large files under RAID would be much
> > appreciated. The pull of FreeBSD is almost inescapable.
>
> You're making FreeBSD sound like a bad thing ;).
Which they are not - and I'm a linux person. :)
--
Hunter Matthews Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioSci 222/244 Bioscience
Never take candy from strangers. Especially on the Internet.
