On 4/6/2011 1:16 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> There are other issues with XFS and 32-bit; see:
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3364
> and
> http://www.mail-archive.com/scientific-linux-users@listserv.fnal.gov/msg05347.html
> and google for 'XFS 32-bit 4K stacks' for more of the gory details.
Tha
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 01:27:10 PM Warren Young wrote:
> Legacy is hard. Next time someone tells you they can't use the latest
> and greatest for some reason, you might take them at their word.
Yes, it is.
To give another for instance, we do work with some interfaces for telescopes
(opti
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 01:16:19 PM Warren Young wrote:
> I expect they added some checks for this since you last tried XFS on 32-bit.
>
> Perhaps it wasn't clear from what I wrote, but the big partition on this
> system is actually 15.9mumble TB, just to be sure we don't even get 1
> byte
On 04/06/11 11:08 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> I already ran the two-server idea past the decision makers. It was
> rejected, even though this server I just built is going to replace an
> existing one purely to add the extra storage, and so it could have just
> acted as a storage side-car to the exis
On 4/6/2011 11:40 AM, Finnur Örn Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> Just a shot in the darkbut can't you have a x86_64 NFS server export
> a fs larger then 16TB and mount that on your x86 machine for use with
> your application?
I already ran the two-server idea past the decision makers. It was
rejected
On 6.4.2011 17:27, Warren Young wrote:
> On 4/5/2011 11:24 AM, Brandon Ooi wrote:
>> Afaik 32-bit binaries do run on the 64-bit build and compat libraries
>> exist for most everything. You should evaluate if you really *really*
>> need 32-bit.
> Yes, thanks for assuming I don't know what I was talk
On 4/5/2011 11:24 AM, Brandon Ooi wrote:
>
> Afaik 32-bit binaries do run on the 64-bit build and compat libraries
> exist for most everything. You should evaluate if you really *really*
> need 32-bit.
Yes, thanks for assuming I don't know what I was talking about when I
wrote that we had a hard
On 4/5/2011 11:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> Dropping to 16.37 TB on the RAID configuration by switching to
>> RAID-6 let us put almost the entire array under a single 16 TB XFS
>> filesystem.
>
> You really, really, really don't want to do this.
Actually, it seems that you can't do it any more. I
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> You really, really, really don't want to do this. Not on 32-bit. When you
> roll one byte over 16TB you will lose access to your filesystem, silently,
> and it will not remount on a 32-bit kernel. XFS works best on a 64-bit
> kernel for a
On Monday, April 04, 2011 11:09:29 PM Warren Young wrote:
> I did this test with Bonnie++ on a 3ware/LSI 9750-8i controller, with
> eight WD 3 TB disks attached. Both tests were done with XFS on CentOS
> 5.5, 32-bit. (Yes, 32-bit. Hard requirement for this application.)
[snip]
> For the RAID-
10 matches
Mail list logo
