Re: [expert] Why Journalled FS do I have to use??!!! I'mdisturbed!!!
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 16:13, Vincent Danen wrote: [ ... ] > Anyways, I agree with some of the limitations of reiserfs... I don't > care too much about the lack of dump/restore... I never use it. NFS > over reiserfs works great now... I have no issues with NFS+reiserfs > anymore since 8.1. dump/restore is a very high priority. In fact... dump/restore works better in XFS than in ext2. The dump in ext2 will hang if the dump partition is mounted and has any dirty inodes in ram (and not committed to disk). This requires the ext2 FS to be unmounted for dumps to complete. (another sysadmin talked to linus about the problem and he said dump was foobarred in 2.4 and no fix was expected till 2.5 when they have a real API to handle the problem...). I guess some people hav'nt had this problem... or maybe they have a workaround but we had many many many many failed hung dumps with ext2... We are required todo FS dumps and keep the backups for at least 1 year for data. With ext2/3, RFS, JFS, they all lose on this requirment. :( In addition we use NFS heavily. We have files that range from very small... to well over 2GB. I dunno what the deal is... But as of mandrake 7.x days NFS just sucked with RFS... So we were stuck with ext2. (since ext2 dump stopped working in 2.4 on any activaly mounted fs we had to rsync to a sun, then do a ufsdump) When 8.1 came out we switched over to XFS for everything except /boot. We've never had a problem with the FS at all. No OOPS... no corruption. Nothing. Just rock solid. That's with NFS mounts from Linux+SUN clients, >2GB files, and heavy database pounding (pgsql). The biggest plus was dump started working... SGI did a good job on making sure highly needed utilities like this worked. (I know... maybe not _everyone_ needs it... but many do...) > I'm not even too concerned about speed... I mean, if xfs is blazing > fast compared to reiserfs, I'd switch in a heartbeat, but if it's > marginally faster, then I wouldn't worry. However, my biggest beef > with reiserfs was the lack of quota support. We have some files >2GB and the speed factor does come in... XFS is faster. > So two questions since I'm too busy to go hunting myself right now and > you seem to know quite a bit about xfs: > > 1) Does it support f/s quotas? Yes, in fact it does better than any other FS in linux... no quotacheck needs to be run! (quota info is in journel) > 2) Is it now in the stock kernel (ie. if I download from kernel.org, > do I need to do any patches to make it work with xfs)? No. They keep submitting the patches to Linus and Alan but they don't even get any feedback... It might be because there is some VM optimizations SGI has added... The FAQ on SGI's webpage doesn't have an answer... they are pretty sure it wil be in 2.5 eventually.. and then in 2.4 later ( http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#linuskernel ) > I've heard about XFS acl's and such that are supposed to make using > Samba really sweet... do these same acl's (of which I know nothing) > work on the local f/s? Ie. can I use xfs acl's to arbitrarily make a > file read-only even from root? Can't help you there... Our Samba stuff is running on a Sun/Solaris 8 server... You should take a look at http://www.mandrakeforum.org/article.php?sid=1212 for some more stuff on FS's. "Well, if you are new to linux, the best bet is probably XFS." -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Why Journalled FS do I have to use??!!! I'mdisturbed!!!
I run XFS on about 20-30+ linux machines. Never have any problems. Our main reason for using XFS was RFS seems to always have some type of problem. I got sick of it... Also, we cannot backup RFS partitions as there is NO dump/restore for the FS (maybe now they do?) I don't even understand why anyone uses RFS. I played with the FS myself since the 2.2.x days (and 2.3 was only around 2.3.6). RFS never seemed to live upto it's promise. I gave up on it once I tried XFS v1.0. I've never looked back. Just go with what actually works NOW. XFS. And it beats the pants off of RFS. Sure.. maybe RFS is getting better... But who wants to patch thier kernel and FS everytime they change somthing? If you read Kernel Traffic ( http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20020121_151.html#3 ) ReiserFS is still under heavy development. They are always implementing things before they even have the userspace tools to back em up. NFS, dump/restore, proven FS, fast, reliable, and rock-solid is XFS. I've even used the xfs_growfs on an activly mounted partition without problems! :) I don't understand how/why RFS got into the kernel... totaly blows me away On Sun, 2002-01-27 at 19:48, ngn wrote: > Hi folks, I'm doubting to choose two different journalled FS ( XFS or RFS ) > > My opinion is that XFS has the best performance in all the fields. > Furthermore it has additional features due to its porting of IRIX, but I > also read that for other people RFS is the best one. > > Also I read that RFS performs best in small and medium size files. However, > XFS performs best in big size files and in big partitions. > > Besides, I read different tests that shows that XFS is the best in almost > all the fields, but I also read people who said that those results were > false due to that kernel has not all the RFS neccesary patches. > > Well, like you see, there are different points of view, so I wanna hear > yours!! > > My machine is a Pentium II Celeron 266 MHZ, with a Seagate of 40 GB [20 GB > for linux] and 160 MB of RAM > > Thanks in advance > > Nicolas Gomez > Montevideo, URUGUAY > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Why Journalled FS do I have to use??!!! I'mdisturbed!!!
Civileme suggested XFS to me when an issue came up over Reiser's compatibility with NFS. Last I heard there was still a question mark over this, so I would go XFS or EXT3 if you are going to use NFS mounts. Otherwise - flip a coin? Brian On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 11:15, Jason Guidry wrote: > On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 08:56, Alan Wilter Sousa da Silva wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > Good question. We have a cluster here working in XFS (scsi HD). > > No problem at all and it was choosen due to documentation and SGI "name". > > But it's using Red Hat. Does MDK work fine with XFS? Is the > > procedure installation of XFS in MDK equal to the one in Red Hat? > > > > I've had great success with XFS, EXT3 and ReiserFS on Mandrake. On > mandrake it's incredibly easy - you just pick which you want during > install partitioning. > > The latest redhat I've played with is 7.1, and it gives no options > during install - defaults to ext3. dunno 'bout 7.2. > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Why Journalled FS do I have to use??!!! I'mdisturbed!!!
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 08:56, Alan Wilter Sousa da Silva wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Good question. We have a cluster here working in XFS (scsi HD). > No problem at all and it was choosen due to documentation and SGI "name". > But it's using Red Hat. Does MDK work fine with XFS? Is the > procedure installation of XFS in MDK equal to the one in Red Hat? > I've had great success with XFS, EXT3 and ReiserFS on Mandrake. On mandrake it's incredibly easy - you just pick which you want during install partitioning. The latest redhat I've played with is 7.1, and it gives no options during install - defaults to ext3. dunno 'bout 7.2. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [expert] Why Journalled FS do I have to use??!!! I'mdisturbed!!!
El lun, 28-01-2002 a las 04:48, ngn escribió: > Hi folks, I'm doubting to choose two different journalled FS ( XFS or RFS ) > > My opinion is that XFS has the best performance in all the fields. > Furthermore it has additional features due to its porting of IRIX, but I > also read that for other people RFS is the best one. > > Also I read that RFS performs best in small and medium size files. However, > XFS performs best in big size files and in big partitions. > > Besides, I read different tests that shows that XFS is the best in almost > all the fields, but I also read people who said that those results were > false due to that kernel has not all the RFS neccesary patches. > > Well, like you see, there are different points of view, so I wanna hear > yours!! > > My machine is a Pentium II Celeron 266 MHZ, with a Seagate of 40 GB [20 GB > for linux] and 160 MB of RAM > > Thanks in advance > > Nicolas Gomez > Montevideo, URUGUAY Use what you want, but I had problems with RFS after several power failures, now I'm using XFS, is similar in speed and I'm having no troubles. But I used RFS with LM 8.0 and XFS in 8.1. I don't know how RFS is working now. Saludos, Óscar. -- .-. oo| /`'\ Usuario de Linux Registrado #227443 (\_;/) http://counter.li.org/ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
