xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and RAID5

To: Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Robin Humble <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS and RAID5
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:21:12 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010618085624.A3739@cornell.edu>
References: <200106180555.FAA00389@groucho.maths.monash.edu.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20010618070434.02d268e0@pop.xs4all.nl> <200106180555.FAA00389@groucho.maths.monash.edu.au>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 08:56 18-6-2001 -0400, Ed McKenzie wrote:

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.

This is over NFS. ReiserFS is somewhat unproven with respect to NFS and ext2 has long fsck times.


(Not that those would be _better_ choices, but XFS is hardly "the only
valid choice" :)

Better is arguable and a personal preference.

Bye

--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>