Hello. Well, to each his own, but for comparison, I have a system running 5.1 withthe the latest namei changes with a 13TB filesystem which, if fsck needs to run, takes less than an hour to complete. I've found 5.1 to be very stable, and so haven't had to worry about the penalty of running fsck after a crash very often. I've found raidframe to be invaluable in my installations, and to have WAPBL be broken in 6.x in conjunction with raidframe seems like a pretty big deturrent for me.
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDfram... Julian Yon
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDfram... David Holland
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDfram... Michael van Elst
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDfram... Michael van Elst
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe pe... Mouse
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDfram... Edgar Fuß
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDfram... Thor Lancelot Simon
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe performance pro... Brian Buhrow
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe performanc... J. Hannken-Illjes
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe perfor... Mouse
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe perfor... Brian Buhrow
- Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe perfor... Manuel Bouyer