| To: | Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS and RAID5 |
| From: | Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:56:24 -0400 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200106180555.FAA00389@groucho.maths.monash.edu.au>; from rjh@groucho.maths.monash.edu.au on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:55:36PM +1000 |
| References: | <4.3.2.7.2.20010618070434.02d268e0@pop.xs4all.nl> <200106180555.FAA00389@groucho.maths.monash.edu.au> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:55:36PM +1000, Robin Humble wrote: > Hopefuly we'll be firing up a NFS + software RAID5 + gigabit ethernet > box within the next couple of weeks, and expect that XFS will be the > only valid choice for such a filesystem. Especially as we're at the > large end of file sizes - I expect all writes to be >= 4G. Note that ext2 and reiserfs also support >2G files on x86 running 2.4 and proper glibc -- see http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html. (Not that those would be _better_ choices, but XFS is hardly "the only valid choice" :) -ed |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Stress test 015 need to check partition size, Marcelo E. Magallon |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | CVSup question, Alan Eldridge |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS and RAID5, Seth Mos |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS and RAID5, Seth Mos |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |