On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Martin Spott wrote:
> Derek Richardson <derek.richardson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hello, I'm a new subscribee, was wondering if anyone knows of any
> > statistics regarding XFS filesystem use in a serious production
> > environment, or has personal experience (I take it there's quite a bit
> > here...).
>
> Sorry, I don't know of any statistics. But I might approve that i'm running
> 2.4.4-XFS on a customers 'PPS' ("Production Planning System", as we call it
> in Germany). This means the customer _really_ depends on a working machine,
> otherwise they would be in " real trouble' (TM) after short time.
>
> The machine is running since July with only one reboot (to switch power
> supplies), havingpretty used > 40 GByte filesystems on external FibreChannel
> array. They're running a OO database in filesystem, so you can imagine that
> it's I/O dependent.
>
> I believe you don't want to use such an old kernel. You'd better want to try
> a recent one (2.4.13) because of all the fixes that went in. I'm pretty
> happy with 2.4.13-XFS on the fileserver at work. The only reason I didn't
> upgrade the kernel on our customer's machine is not to touch the uptime ;-)
You could also use the newer 2.4.9 redhat errata kernels that you can find
in the testing directory on the FTP site which works very well on the
database server at work.
Cheers
Seth
|