Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On Wed, 2008-03-05 16:23, Michael Hipp wrote... > >> Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, > >> perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have > >> noticed they go to zero size > > > > I believe I read somewhere that that has been fixed some time ago. > > Oliver, could you perchance find a reference for that? Dapper really > isn't that old. Yes, I found it again. It's in the XFS FAQ, actually: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls Sadly, the fix only went in for 2.6.22, so Dapper (probably) doesn't have it. Also, it doesn't say how it was fixed, or how the new behaviour is. I haven't looked for the changeset in question itself, maybe it sheds some light on the issue. HTH, Oliver -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
Onno Benschop wrote: > On 05/03/08 14:21, Nick Webb wrote: >> Hi All - >> >> I posted this question to the ubuntu-users list perviously, but this >> seems like the proper list to post to (I just discovered this list). >> >> I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= >> 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is >> the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a >> 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, >> so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. >> >> Can anyone share their XFS experiences on Ubuntu Dapper? Is it as >> stable as ext3 in your experience? Any tips/tricks/gotchas? Any other >> file systems I should look at (JFS, ReiserFS, etc.)? >> >> I posed the same question to other Linux users I know, and there was a >> mix of "I've had no problems" to "I stuck with ext3, it's solid and I >> know I can trust it, despite the horrible fsck times." I'm really >> curious to get other opinions, especially with the shipped binaries on >> Dapper, as we only use LTS for production machines. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Nick >> >> >> > I've read many of the responses you received and I wondered something else. > > I don't know what kind of data set you have that requires >2TB > partitions, but another route to travel would be multiple smaller > partitions that you each check on a regular basis. Unmount the > partition, fsck it, then remount it. > > That's an option in most cases. For this particular case (5TB) is a file share of videos and high resolution photographs. We could likely partition it up by customer or something like that, but if we can have one huge partition that's just easier for most things. Good point, though. Nick -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On 05/03/2008, Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've experienced this data loss on XFS more than once due to one kind of > abrupt shutdown or another. XFS seems fragile. Almost like it's not a > journaled filesystem at all. It's an enterprise FS from big iron country. It - and JFS - were designed in the expectation that they would at all times be run on a machine protected by a UPS with automatic shutdown, because that's just what you /do/ with big corporate servers. It's not even a question. Alas, it's *not* a given in Linux-land... -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • MSN/Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
Oliver Brakmann wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 17:04, David Kempe wrote... >> Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, >> perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have >> noticed they go to zero size > > I believe I read somewhere that that has been fixed some time ago. Oliver, could you perchance find a reference for that? Dapper really isn't that old. Not disagreeing. I'd *like* to use XFS, I just feel burned by it. An indicator that this issue has been solidly addressed would be great news. Some things to read: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388#comment_40 (read all comments to the end) http://www.tummy.com/journals/entries/jafo_20041226_015752 Thanks, Michael -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On Wed, 2008-03-05 17:04, David Kempe wrote... > XFS is good, we use it on dapper all the time. My largest XFS filesystem > is 5.5TB formatted. While I don't have such huge filesystems, I've been using XFS for ~6 years now, without any problems at all. > btw, one thing I found was that xfs_repair can chew massive amounts of > ram to run a repair on a filesystem. I had a 2TB fs take nearly 8gb of > ram (and swap) to repair it. It did a good job of repairing, and took > ages. They're actually working on fixing that. See this interesting talk: http://linux.conf.au/programme/detail?TalkID=135 Slides: http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2008/slides/135-fixing_xfs_faster.pdf Video: http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2008/Wed/mel8-135.ogg > Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, > perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have > noticed they go to zero size I believe I read somewhere that that has been fixed some time ago. Oliver -- "Sometimes an impulsive 2:00 AM cross-country trip is the only solution." - http://xkcd.com/352/ NP: Dream Theater - Octavarium -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On 05/03/08 14:21, Nick Webb wrote: > Hi All - > > I posted this question to the ubuntu-users list perviously, but this > seems like the proper list to post to (I just discovered this list). > > I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= > 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is > the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a > 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, > so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. > > Can anyone share their XFS experiences on Ubuntu Dapper? Is it as > stable as ext3 in your experience? Any tips/tricks/gotchas? Any other > file systems I should look at (JFS, ReiserFS, etc.)? > > I posed the same question to other Linux users I know, and there was a > mix of "I've had no problems" to "I stuck with ext3, it's solid and I > know I can trust it, despite the horrible fsck times." I'm really > curious to get other opinions, especially with the shipped binaries on > Dapper, as we only use LTS for production machines. > > Thanks! > > Nick > > > I've read many of the responses you received and I wondered something else. I don't know what kind of data set you have that requires >2TB partitions, but another route to travel would be multiple smaller partitions that you each check on a regular basis. Unmount the partition, fsck it, then remount it. -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |>>?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On 06/03/08 06:09, Nick Webb wrote: > Adam McGreggor wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 08:35:07PM +, Adam McGreggor wrote: >> >> What I meant to say was... >> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:21:07PM -0800, Nick Webb wrote: >>> Hi All - I posted this question to the ubuntu-users list perviously, but this seems like the proper list to post to (I just discovered this list). I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. >> (just as a suggestion): perhaps disable fsck at bootime, via tune2fs ? >> > > Yeah, I've had this thought. I do this even on 1TB ext3 file systems, > just so I don't get caught in the awkward, "yeah it will be up in 15 > minutes" which turns into 2 hours situation. > > However, is it really safe to never do an fsck? It seems that most of > the time it's unnecessary for ext3 as the journal recovery usually works > fine. > > The tune2fs man page also states this, which I could just ignore, but > makes me feel slightly uneasy: > > You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling >mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk > drives, >cables, memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a > filesystem >without marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If > you are >using journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem > will never >be marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A > filesys‐ >tem error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck > on the >next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent > data loss >at that point. > > > Perhaps the right answer is to do regular maintenance once or twice a > year on these huge filesystems. In most cases I can find 8hours or more > to schedule an fsck on a Friday night... > > Nick > > > I have personal experience where EXT3 still requires an fsck to stop data loss. It "shouldn't" happen, but on occasion it does. -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |>>?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On 06/03/08 05:56, Michael Hipp wrote: > I've experienced this data loss on XFS more than once due to one kind of > abrupt shutdown or another. XFS seems fragile. Almost like it's not a > journaled filesystem at all. > > XFS has several advantages over ext3. But I abandoned it because of this > fragility. Ext3 seems far more idiot proof and I prefer things that > "just work" even if they're not glamorous. > > Just my experiences. > That has been my experience as well. -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |>>?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
Adam McGreggor wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 08:35:07PM +, Adam McGreggor wrote: > > What I meant to say was... > >> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:21:07PM -0800, Nick Webb wrote: >>> Hi All - >>> >>> I posted this question to the ubuntu-users list perviously, but this >>> seems like the proper list to post to (I just discovered this list). >>> >>> I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= >>> 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is >>> the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a >>> 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, >>> so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. > > (just as a suggestion): perhaps disable fsck at bootime, via tune2fs ? Yeah, I've had this thought. I do this even on 1TB ext3 file systems, just so I don't get caught in the awkward, "yeah it will be up in 15 minutes" which turns into 2 hours situation. However, is it really safe to never do an fsck? It seems that most of the time it's unnecessary for ext3 as the journal recovery usually works fine. The tune2fs man page also states this, which I could just ignore, but makes me feel slightly uneasy: You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables, memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesys‐ tem error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss at that point. Perhaps the right answer is to do regular maintenance once or twice a year on these huge filesystems. In most cases I can find 8hours or more to schedule an fsck on a Friday night... Nick -- Nick Webb System Administrator Freelock Computing - www.freelock.com 206.577.0540 x22 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
David Kempe wrote: > Nick Webb wrote: >> I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= >> 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is >> the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a >> 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, >> so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. >> > > Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, > perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have > noticed they go to zero size, whereas in messy situations with ext3 I > have noticed you are more likely to loose metadata than data. I still > would stick with XFS anyday though, even just because the sheer increase > in format time. I've experienced this data loss on XFS more than once due to one kind of abrupt shutdown or another. XFS seems fragile. Almost like it's not a journaled filesystem at all. XFS has several advantages over ext3. But I abandoned it because of this fragility. Ext3 seems far more idiot proof and I prefer things that "just work" even if they're not glamorous. Just my experiences. Michael -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 08:35:07PM +, Adam McGreggor wrote: What I meant to say was... > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:21:07PM -0800, Nick Webb wrote: > > Hi All - > > > > I posted this question to the ubuntu-users list perviously, but this > > seems like the proper list to post to (I just discovered this list). > > > > I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= > > 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is > > the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a > > 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, > > so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. (just as a suggestion): perhaps disable fsck at bootime, via tune2fs ? -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Nick Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can anyone share their XFS experiences on Ubuntu Dapper? Is it as > stable as ext3 in your experience? Any tips/tricks/gotchas? Any other > file systems I should look at (JFS, ReiserFS, etc.)? I have a (comparatively small) 1TB filesystem on top of a RAID5 attached to a server that has evolved through Dapper->Edgy->Feisty->Gutsy. Before settling on XFS, I ran a few benchmarks testing EXT3, JFS, and XFS. EXT3 reduced my overall formatted partition most drastically (which is a lot of Gig's thrown away on huge filesystems). I also found huge differences between XFS/JFS and EXT3 on file deletes. I have had no problems to speak of with XFS. Finally, you might find this article informative: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388 :-Dustin -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:21:07PM -0800, Nick Webb wrote: > Hi All - > > I posted this question to the ubuntu-users list perviously, but this > seems like the proper list to post to (I just discovered this list). > > I've got a couple projects coming up that will have a file systems >= > 2TB and I'm thinking of using XFS for it. Main feature of XFS I need is > the lack of fsck at startup (fsck for ext2/3 will take many hours with a > 2TB partition). The file system will also likely have many large files, > so XFS seems to be a good choice for this as well. > > Can anyone share their XFS experiences on Ubuntu Dapper? Is it as > stable as ext3 in your experience? Any tips/tricks/gotchas? Any other > file systems I should look at (JFS, ReiserFS, etc.)? > > I posed the same question to other Linux users I know, and there was a > mix of "I've had no problems" to "I stuck with ext3, it's solid and I > know I can trust it, despite the horrible fsck times." I'm really > curious to get other opinions, especially with the shipped binaries on > Dapper, as we only use LTS for production machines. > > Thanks! > > Nick > > > -- > Nick Webb > System Administrator > Freelock Computing - www.freelock.com > 206.577.0540 x22 > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
Nick Webb wrote: > I'll be doing all of these on 64-bit systems, good to know. I just got > a new project today that will start out around 5TB and likely grow to 7 > or 8 soon. Not all these systems have enough ram + swap to get to 8GB > of virtual memory, I wonder how it works without that much, I hope it > doesn't just fail? xfs_repair runs out of ram and dies. I needed to add heaps of swap on this one system. > Also, you can run xfs_check online, right? That's my impression, so at > least the server isn't down during the check, although it will likely be > crawling. its xfs_repair that takes the ram xfs_check is fast and simple i think. > Yes I've heard this as well from some RedHat/CentOS friends. My intent > would be to make sure all the systems with XFS have a good UPS, and are > setup to shutdown on power loss. Of course, we'll have a good backup > plan as well. That should mitigate things to the point it doesn't > really matter... rdiff-backup rocks for this, with nagios... dave -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
