Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
I like the speed of ReiserFS, excellent!... but use ext3 for /boot and /backup as I can boot the ext3 from my OSX -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
On 10/6/05, Sean W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I am setting up an Ubuntu 5.04 box tomorrow as a Samba server > (right after I figure out how to disable the raid controller). Do you > suggest xfs? I've been reading this thread and people seem positive on > it, but are there negatives as well? I've never done any IO testing on Ubuntu, so all I can say about it is that I run it and it works. I don't know what its behaviour will be like under load. That is likely to vary between distros as much as between filesystems. -- James Peach | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
While I don't know all distros, I don't know of any that doesn't support ext2/3. I can't say that about xfs, jfs, reiserfs. That's what I meant by standard. SuSE's "default" or "preferred" fs maybe reiser, but I would be surprised to find out they took out ext2/3 support. - toby bluhm philips medical systems, cleveland ohio [EMAIL PROTECTED] 440-483-5323 Ryan Kather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/06/2005 09:28 AM To samba@lists.samba.org cc Subject Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem Classification EXT3 is a good filesystem, but I wouldn't say it's the standard for Linux. That largely depends on what distribution you use. For example, SuSE's standard is ReiserFS 3.6. Reiser is great for lots of small files, but yes EXT3 is better in general. Reiser4 is very high performance though, if speed is your ultimate concern. However, Reiser4 is not presently supported in the standard Linux kernel, is very bleeding edge, and there is some degree of political fallout regarding its take on "plugins". That being said, I've had good luck with it personally, but don't yell at me if a bug in it causes data loss! Regards, Ryan On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 09:10 -0400, Tobias Bluhm wrote: > I gotta put my vote in for ext3. While it is slower than the other fs's: > > - It's robust. I've researched this & it seems you can bash ext3/2 pretty > hard & still recover data. I saw too many stories of lost data on the > other fs's for my liking. > > - It's fully supported. ACL, xattr, quota, LVM snapshots, shrink, grow, > mount unjournaled, etc. xfs is a port from IRIX, jfs seems to have only a > partial feature set, reiserfs seems to be made for one thing - a sh*tload > of small files. > > - It's widely supported. It's the standard fs for Linux. > > As with just about anything, fast hardware, plenty of RAM & proper tuning > will get the most out of your system. Why not setup various tests for > yourself - we've used iometer ( www.iometer.org ) recently. My little > hodge-podge of hardware made out fairly well against the "enterprise" > systems here. > > Just my 2 cents serving ~ 2TB of ext3 on LVM on sw raid over NFS & Samba. > Disclaimer: I could be very wrong about the current status of things > outside my little world. > > > - > toby bluhm > philips medical systems, cleveland ohio > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 440-483-5323 > > > > > > > > > Sean W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 10/06/2005 03:26 AM > > To > samba@lists.samba.org > cc > > Subject > [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem > Classification > > > > > > > > Actually, I am setting up an Ubuntu 5.04 box tomorrow as a Samba server > (right after I figure out how to disable the raid controller). Do you > suggest xfs? I've been reading this thread and people seem positive on > it, but are there negatives as well? > > Sean > > James Peach wrote: > > On 10/6/05, Eric A. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On 10/4/2005 7:17 PM, mourik jan c heupink wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I like xfs, specially with quota. (and using acl's here as well) > >>> > >>>with xfs you never have to run the check_quota (or whatever the command > >>>is...) This makes a rebooting after a crash *much* faster. > >> > >>that was one of the things I liked about, and replaying the journal was > >>nice too. > >> > >>one of the problems I had a couple of years back was that it wasn't > >>bootable (had to boot a mini-kernel off a fat partition, then load the > xfs > >>modules). they've fixed that buy now I assume. > > > > > > That might depend on yr distro. I've used XFS root partitions on > > Ubuntu 5.04, SLES9 and OpenSUSE without any problems. > > > > -- > > James Peach | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
EXT3 is a good filesystem, but I wouldn't say it's the standard for Linux. That largely depends on what distribution you use. For example, SuSE's standard is ReiserFS 3.6. Reiser is great for lots of small files, but yes EXT3 is better in general. Reiser4 is very high performance though, if speed is your ultimate concern. However, Reiser4 is not presently supported in the standard Linux kernel, is very bleeding edge, and there is some degree of political fallout regarding its take on "plugins". That being said, I've had good luck with it personally, but don't yell at me if a bug in it causes data loss! Regards, Ryan On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 09:10 -0400, Tobias Bluhm wrote: > I gotta put my vote in for ext3. While it is slower than the other fs's: > > - It's robust. I've researched this & it seems you can bash ext3/2 pretty > hard & still recover data. I saw too many stories of lost data on the > other fs's for my liking. > > - It's fully supported. ACL, xattr, quota, LVM snapshots, shrink, grow, > mount unjournaled, etc. xfs is a port from IRIX, jfs seems to have only a > partial feature set, reiserfs seems to be made for one thing - a sh*tload > of small files. > > - It's widely supported. It's the standard fs for Linux. > > As with just about anything, fast hardware, plenty of RAM & proper tuning > will get the most out of your system. Why not setup various tests for > yourself - we've used iometer ( www.iometer.org ) recently. My little > hodge-podge of hardware made out fairly well against the "enterprise" > systems here. > > Just my 2 cents serving ~ 2TB of ext3 on LVM on sw raid over NFS & Samba. > Disclaimer: I could be very wrong about the current status of things > outside my little world. > > > - > toby bluhm > philips medical systems, cleveland ohio > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 440-483-5323 > > > > > > > > > Sean W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 10/06/2005 03:26 AM > > To > samba@lists.samba.org > cc > > Subject > [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem > Classification > > > > > > > > Actually, I am setting up an Ubuntu 5.04 box tomorrow as a Samba server > (right after I figure out how to disable the raid controller). Do you > suggest xfs? I've been reading this thread and people seem positive on > it, but are there negatives as well? > > Sean > > James Peach wrote: > > On 10/6/05, Eric A. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On 10/4/2005 7:17 PM, mourik jan c heupink wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I like xfs, specially with quota. (and using acl's here as well) > >>> > >>>with xfs you never have to run the check_quota (or whatever the command > >>>is...) This makes a rebooting after a crash *much* faster. > >> > >>that was one of the things I liked about, and replaying the journal was > >>nice too. > >> > >>one of the problems I had a couple of years back was that it wasn't > >>bootable (had to boot a mini-kernel off a fat partition, then load the > xfs > >>modules). they've fixed that buy now I assume. > > > > > > That might depend on yr distro. I've used XFS root partitions on > > Ubuntu 5.04, SLES9 and OpenSUSE without any problems. > > > > -- > > James Peach | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
On Thursday 06 October 2005 09:10 am, Tobias Bluhm wrote: > I gotta put my vote in for ext3. While it is slower than the other fs's: > > - It's robust. I've researched this & it seems you can bash ext3/2 pretty > hard & still recover data. I saw too many stories of lost data on the > other fs's for my liking. > > - It's fully supported. ACL, xattr, quota, LVM snapshots, shrink, grow, > mount unjournaled, etc. xfs is a port from IRIX, jfs seems to have only a > partial feature set, reiserfs seems to be made for one thing - a sh*tload > of small files. > > - It's widely supported. It's the standard fs for Linux. > > As with just about anything, fast hardware, plenty of RAM & proper tuning > will get the most out of your system. Why not setup various tests for > yourself - we've used iometer ( www.iometer.org ) recently. My little > hodge-podge of hardware made out fairly well against the "enterprise" > systems here. > > Just my 2 cents serving ~ 2TB of ext3 on LVM on sw raid over NFS & Samba. > Disclaimer: I could be very wrong about the current status of things > outside my little world. > > I don't know. ext2/3 has been around for a long time and I'm sure it's very reliable and I use ext2 for /boot. However, I have used reiserfs for /, /home and /var for a very long time, 2+years and not had any problems with it. I have used it with the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels without issue of any kind. One machine an old IBM PC Server 330 with built in hardware raid has a 6 disk raid (0,5?, hee been so long now I'd have to look) setup for samba and not had any issues with it. The machine has lost power in several ways and it gets all sorts of stuff installed and removed, copied and deleted. In all reiserfs have been very good for me. As with all things YMMV. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
I gotta put my vote in for ext3. While it is slower than the other fs's: - It's robust. I've researched this & it seems you can bash ext3/2 pretty hard & still recover data. I saw too many stories of lost data on the other fs's for my liking. - It's fully supported. ACL, xattr, quota, LVM snapshots, shrink, grow, mount unjournaled, etc. xfs is a port from IRIX, jfs seems to have only a partial feature set, reiserfs seems to be made for one thing - a sh*tload of small files. - It's widely supported. It's the standard fs for Linux. As with just about anything, fast hardware, plenty of RAM & proper tuning will get the most out of your system. Why not setup various tests for yourself - we've used iometer ( www.iometer.org ) recently. My little hodge-podge of hardware made out fairly well against the "enterprise" systems here. Just my 2 cents serving ~ 2TB of ext3 on LVM on sw raid over NFS & Samba. Disclaimer: I could be very wrong about the current status of things outside my little world. - toby bluhm philips medical systems, cleveland ohio [EMAIL PROTECTED] 440-483-5323 Sean W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/06/2005 03:26 AM To samba@lists.samba.org cc Subject [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem Classification Actually, I am setting up an Ubuntu 5.04 box tomorrow as a Samba server (right after I figure out how to disable the raid controller). Do you suggest xfs? I've been reading this thread and people seem positive on it, but are there negatives as well? Sean James Peach wrote: > On 10/6/05, Eric A. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On 10/4/2005 7:17 PM, mourik jan c heupink wrote: >> >> >>>I like xfs, specially with quota. (and using acl's here as well) >>> >>>with xfs you never have to run the check_quota (or whatever the command >>>is...) This makes a rebooting after a crash *much* faster. >> >>that was one of the things I liked about, and replaying the journal was >>nice too. >> >>one of the problems I had a couple of years back was that it wasn't >>bootable (had to boot a mini-kernel off a fat partition, then load the xfs >>modules). they've fixed that buy now I assume. > > > That might depend on yr distro. I've used XFS root partitions on > Ubuntu 5.04, SLES9 and OpenSUSE without any problems. > > -- > James Peach | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
