xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

LVM and XFS in 1.0.1-PR1 and usability in production

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: LVM and XFS in 1.0.1-PR1 and usability in production
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:44:42 +0200
>received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508DF57306; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:50:21 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
References: <200106211608.f5LG8m713919@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

One question regarding kernel RPM's:
I've built new RPM's from kernel-2.4.5-0.2.9_SGI_XFS_20010613.src.rpm
and from kernel-2.4.2-SGI_XFS_1.0.1_PR1.src.rpm. I patched the them to
support the new Promise Ultra100 TX2 chipset and I disabled
REISERFS_CHECK to make reiserfs usable as well. I'm not using it but if
it's compiled in, it should be done right. Beside those two changes I
didn't touch enything in the .spec or any .config file. After booting
the PR1 kernel I found out that LVM support has gone. I was checking the
.config files against Release-1.0 and found out that quite alot changes
were there. Why? Are there so many XFS related changes or did it just
happen by chance. I enabled LVM in all Intel .configs, rebuilt tonight
and tested now. Seems to work fine. Is there a problem with LVM in PR1
or is it as (un)safe to use than in 1.0?

About usability and stability:
I'm installing a 200GB server and a second one as mirror. The system
will serve samba to ~50 users. System comes on SoftRAID1, data on
SoftRAID5 with LVM on top and XFS on the server, ext2 on the mirror
because of snapshotting. I've built a similar setup at home on my old
Pentium200MMX with 64M ram and it was absolutely stable under heavy
load. The problem with the new servers is that they will be located in
London and I'm sitting in Basel/Switzerland. I did not find any big
problem with XFS until now and I really don't want ext2. Yesterday you
said
> We use it here, but generally we have upgraded beyond the 1.0 release and
> run later kernels. The machine hosting the oss website was recently upgraded
> to the 1.0 release, but was getting an uptime of about 24 hours before it
> hung. We have bumped it up to a more recent version of XFS, the one in the
> test 1.0.1 rpms here
Will it crash after a week or so? Did I missunderstand? Am I very crazy?
If I'm doing it what version should I take, 1.0 or 1.0.1-PR1. Is it a
big difference regarding stability?

Greetings
Simon

-- 
Simon Matter              Tel:  +41 61 695 57 35
Fr.Sauter AG / CIT        Fax:  +41 61 695 53 30
Im Surinam 55
CH-4016 Basel             [mailto:simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]



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