On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 03:39:55PM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> *) ext3 - no-go, because quota isn't journalled
there are patches for that
> *) reiserfs - no-go, because of lack of quota
i was pretty sure this was merged, if not there are patches for that
too
> Some 4-8 hours after the backup has started, the dreaded
> 'debug.c:106' message will appear (at some random place thru the
> filesystem - it is not a consistent error in one specific location
> in the filesystem), and the server will need a reboot.
have you run vmstat duing the backup to see what is going on here?
checking /proc/meminfo periodically might also be useful. im guessing
you're getting massive amounts of slab being used from the dcache and
runing low on low-memory and coupled with page-cache pressure
something is getting upset... (this was much more apparent in 2.4.x,
i've not seen it for a long time in 2.6.x though)
how much ram does the machine have and are you using highmem?
> Does anyone actually use XFS for serious file-serving? (yes, I run
> it on my desktop at home and I don't have problems there - such
> reports are not really relevant).
plenty of people. some of them would claim a few hungred GB isn't
very serious either.
> Is anyone actually maintaining/bugfixing XFS?
yes
> And finally, if Linux is simply a no-go for high performance file
> serving, what other suggestions might people have? NetApp?
i dunno, linux works pertty well for the most part. i'm not a fan of
linux with nfs right now (server or client) mostly as in the past it's
not been very reliable or had good performance, but people are working
on changing that
netapp hardware is nice (and their nfs works great) --- but it costs a
lot more typically
--cw
|