All -
This discussion has been very helpful to me... I'm setting up a couple of
new systems and was going to use ext3, but now I've decided to take the
plunge and use ext4. It's not formally supported in RHEL 5.5 yet, but I
discovered you can load it as a "Technology Preview" and from what I can
tell, it looks like ext4 is nearing a supported release from RH and is
pretty stable (though they warn you not to use it on production systems).
Looks like all I have to do is "yum install e4fsprogs" and start using it,
though the ext4 commands have a "4" in them instead of a "2" until formal
release. Here's a couple of links in case anyone else is interested:
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/5.5_Technical_Notes/chap-Technical_Notes-_Technology_Previews_.html
https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto
Art
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Gerald Creager wrote:
Hi, Kevin,
ext4 appears, so far, to be a food fit for our gluster services. That's all
we've looked at it for, and for that matter, we're still using XFS on our
gluster system for the HPC instance.
XFS has proven sensitive to loss of a RAID shelf, or loss of a particular
drive or two on a shelf, in our world when we were using LVM2 to create
larger volumes. That can cause a lot of problems all of a sudden. When a
hardware failure happens and XFS goes offline, an xfs-recovery operation
often requires loss of data when the XFS log is blown away, which you
shouldn't HAVE to do, but, in our experience, is required about 2/3d of the
time.
That said, if we never had hardware failures, XFS would be just about
perfect...
gc
Kevin R. Tyle wrote:
Hi Gerry, et al.:
Any sense as to whether ext4 is improved enough to warrant its use in lieu
of a non-journaling fs such as ext2?
Also, what particular problems are of concern with XFS?
--Kevin
______________________________________________________________________
Kevin Tyle, Systems Administrator **********************
Dept. of Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences ktyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University at Albany, ES-235 518-442-4578 (voice)
1400 Washington Avenue 518-442-5825 (fax)
Albany, NY 12222 **********************
______________________________________________________________________
On 10/25/2010 08:43 PM, Gerald Creager wrote:
I have not, but with the amount of disk we run, we've gone far away from
ext3. We have XFS for our NFS partitions, and ext4 for our Gluster. There
are a whole lot of problems associated with ext3, in cluding but not
limited to how long it takes to do one of its periodic checks when you've
exceed the time limit or reboot count.
gerry
Arthur A. Person wrote:
Has anyone tried mounting ext3 with the data=writeback option (with the
risk that active data files could be corrupt after a crash)? I'm
wondering how close performance would come to ext2...
Art
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Gerald Creager wrote:
The choices for files of this size are ext2 if you don't care about
journaling, or XFS. XFS has its own share of problems but does work very
well.
gerry
Tyler Allison wrote:
We switched off of ext3 for our data partitions for high speed IO. It
blows chunks compared to ext2. You loose journaling but I don't care. I
don't have long term storage.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2010, at 3:10 PM, "Jeff Lake - Admin"
<admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yep both 7200 SATA2's
was considering a Velociraptor 10K RPM but at the xtra $60/m .... need
to really consider long and hard
Jeff,
If your disk RPM isn't at least 7200, your I/O is going to be bad
with Level2/3 feeds.
*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste ********
(My opinions only!) ******
Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University ****
E-mail: sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ***
web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu
**
*******************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
Arthur A. Person
Research Assistant, System Administrator
Penn State Department of Meteorology
email: person@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, phone: 814-863-1563
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
Arthur A. Person
Research Assistant, System Administrator
Penn State Department of Meteorology
email: person@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, phone: 814-863-1563
