On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:19:12PM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> Just so you know, I haven't set up a streaming media storage server,
> although my data server has been running for quite awhile now 24x7 with
> the only gotcha being an issue with (it seems) VIA and the Linux kernels
> before 2.4.9 and system lockups when a drive in my RAID5 system on a 3ware
> controller conked out.
So you are running kernel version 2.4.9 on a debian (Sid) box?
>
> I also use Debian GNU/Linux and I believe so do a number of XFS
> developers. I'm very happy with it (Debian) and just so you know the cmd
> tree of XFS contains build scripts for the various packages so you can
> have the latest XFS programs in properly Debianized packages. You can also
> get these via the unstable tree, of course.
That sounds very nice indeed ;-)
>
> Also you may want to note that to get the 2.4 kernels working properly on
> Debian you'll need at least Woody, I think. Or maybe the packages by bunk
That was what i was planning to use. Woody seems to be pretty stable
these days and ive read that it has gone into freeze, which IMHO makes
it a good choice for productionenviroments that needs to be stable but
still fairly new regarding features.
> Assuming you don't intend to run FreeBSD or some other flavor of UNIX (it
We are not. Currently we have a NetBSD box as our gateway but thats it.
> ReiserFS, while also a good journalling filesystem for Linux, is not ready
> for primetime when it comes to inode-dependent subsystems like NFS.
I find it strange that ReiserFS has made it into the 2.4.x kernel not
being overall ready while XFS did not? Are there any history reason or
are they just a coincident?
> Benchmarks also show that XFS is superior to ReiserFS for large files (XFS
> starts "winning" when files hit 10000 bytes in size as per the Namesys
> mongo.pl benchmarks) that don't get deleted en masse on a regular basis.
Which is exactly those filesizes or even bigger we are heading
for. Are there any online performances test on read/write/delete for
XFS? CPU use etc.
> Samba 2.2.1a and XFS perform great as a team. I haven't fully explored
Samba 2.2.1 on debian (Woody)? Or did you compile it yourself?
> locking issues, although I haven't stress tested a system with both being
Do you have any stats for read/write for those systems?
--
Venlig hilsen/Kind regards
Thomas Kirk
ARKENA
thomas@xxxxxxxxxx
Http://www.arkena.com
>Ever heard of .cshrc?
That's a city in Bosnia. Right?
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands.)
|