On 10/28/2011 01:32 PM, Peter Ruprecht wrote: > Greg Swift wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:30, Masopust, Christian >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> > Götz Reinicke wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like >> > uncompressed >> > > movies from student film projects, dvd images etc. >> > > >> > > It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed >> > by more than >> > > may be 5 people at the same time. >> > > >> > > The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again >> > faced with the >> > > question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which >> > mount options etc. >> > > >> > > For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big >> > > filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has >> > to search >> > > e.g. on multiple volumes. >> > > >> > > On the other hand, if one big filesystem crashes or has do >> > be checked it >> > > will destroy a lot of data or the check will take hours ... >> > > >> > > >> > > Any suggestions pro or cons are welcome! :-) >> > > >> > > My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default >> ext4 >> > > settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1) >> > > >> > > Thanks and best regards. Götz >> > >> > If you decide to go with RHEL6, xfs is a good bet for making >> one big >> > filesystem. We have a setup similar to what you're >> > describing and have >> > had very solid stability and performance using xfs (default >> > filesystem >> > and mount settings.) As far as I can see (and knocking on >> > wood), xfs is >> > now a lot less flaky than it seemed to be in the past. >> > >> > -Peter >> >> I can approve what Peter mentioned. I've been using xfs on my >> CentOS 5 system with 2 16TB arrays (each holding one single >> filesystem) >> for several years with absolutely no issues! >> >> >> So in his intial request he mentioned concern about fsck times. How >> has this been for you guys (Christian and Peter) ? >> >> fwiw, I'm actually mixing both xfs with 30+TB total file system and >> gluster in a different use case... I just haven't had to fsck a >> system yet so I am very curious about how that is performing for others. >> >> -greg > > In testing, I purposely crashed the system while under light-moderate > I/O load, and the xfs fs didn't need any recovery when it was > remounted. I don't have any real-world experience with how long it > would take to xfs_check and xfs_repair a fs of that size that had > gotten corrupted, sorry. Though I will not be disappointed if I > manage to avoid gaining that experience! > > -Peter >
I used to manage a handful of SGI's running IRIX on XFS. If I recall correctly, an XFS filesystem should NEVER need an fsck or xfs_repair. Of course, it's the vendor who says that, not the sys admins working in the trenches with XFS. In fact, I don't even think those utilities are installed as part of the OS - I'm pretty sure I had to install them manually myself. That was a few years ago, so my memory might be a bit hazy. Prentice _______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
