Nick Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 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).
>>
>> Er, that fsck is for the sake of safety and can be disabled; feel free
>> to do so and take the same risks that XFS exposes you to. If that is
>> your /only/ reason for preferring XFS then worry no more.
>>
>> (See tune2fs for details; set the mount count and time for fsck to off)
>
> Thanks for the very informed reply, Daniel.
>
> I know I can do this, and I've actually done it in a few places with
> the idea that "someday" I'll fsck them when then can be down for
> hours. These systems have filesystems <= 1TB which is painful enough,
> but basically just inconvenient.
>
> What is your experience with just not fscking ext3? Is it safe to
> never do so unless you have hard crash (kernel panic, etc.)?
In my experience and opinion the developers of ext3 are unlikely to
introduce regressions, and as long as you stick to a distribution any
such bug is extremely unlikely to reach you.
So, in that case ext3 is more or less as safe as the underlying storage
architecture -- hardware, cables, power, etc -- and it is really only on
that basis that you need consider the issue.
>>>>> The file system will also likely have many large files, so XFS seems
>>>>> to be a good choice for this as well.
>>
>> The benefits may be more mixed than you expect, unless you need good
>> streaming write performance for those files.
>
> OK I've got mixed needs on different servers. Some are more generic
> and other than the sheer size of the volumes I wouldn't hesitate to
> use ext3. Sounds like sticking with ext3 for these volumes isn't a
> bad idea?
It tends to lower performance than XFS, but it is more conservative in
terms of data protection. The performance difference isn't big enough
to justify the gain of XFS in most real world cases, in my opinion.
> I have a few projects where the filesystem will store raw images and
> video, so XFS might have the leg up there. However, so far there is
> no requirement to stream anything...
>
> Where would you use XFS over ext3?
Well, I would tend to deploy it on an Hardy system onward in preference,
because most of the places I use it are unpredictable: we ship a server
to a customer who may do anything with it. ;)
XFS is still a bit more risky than ext3, but a bit higher performance;
I use XFS on my own daily use workstation, but still use ext3 on all my
own, and my customers, servers.
Regards,
Daniel
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
