[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Optimal XFS formatting options?

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Optimal XFS formatting options?
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:31:07 +0100
In-reply-to: <4F19EE5E.8030508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <33140169.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201201201652.10193@xxxxxx> <4F19EE5E.8030508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.1.5-zmi; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )
On Freitag, 20. Januar 2012 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If ease (or cost) of filesystem administration is of that much
> greater priority than performance, then why are you using XFS in the
> first place instead of EXT?

Great experience in recovery of disaster filesystem problems on XFS. A 
switch to another FS costs a lot of time, and why switch if it works 
great? And administration comes down to mkfs, mount, maybe xfs_fsr, in 
disaster xfs_repair, and sometimes xfs_growfs. Basically nothing.

Also, this list has been of great help during the years, whenever there 
were problems they got fixed. That's ease of administration :-)

mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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