Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Rob Owens <rowens@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:24:05 -0400
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:56:21PM +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I've read articles which state that ext3 has superior resilience to
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:Hello Stan,
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
I think you are confusing what is with what should be.
A'ight, you forced me to pull out the big gun. Choke on it. The master
penguin himself, kernel.org, has run on XFS since 2008. Sorry for the body
slam. Is your back ok Mark? ;) Pretty sure I just "won" this discussion.
Err, actually, XFS wins. ;) BTW, the main Debian mirror in the U.S. is
actually housed in kernel.org last I checked. Thus, the files on your
system were very likely originally served from XFS.
The Linux Kernel Archives
"A bit more than a year ago (as of October 2008) kernel.org, in an ever
increasing need to squeeze more performance out of it's machines, made the
leap of migrating the primary mirror machines (mirrors.kernel.org) to XFS.
We site a number of reasons including fscking 5.5T of disk is long and
painful, we were hitting various cache issues, and we were seeking better
performance out of our file system."
"After initial tests looked positive we made the jump, and have been quite
happy with the results. With an instant increase in performance and
throughput, as well as the worst xfs_check we've ever seen taking 10
minutes, we were quite happy. Subsequently we've moved all primary mirroring
file-systems to XFS, including www.kernel.org , and mirrors.kernel.org. With
an average constant movement of about 400mbps around the world, and with
peaks into the 3.1gbps range serving thousands of users simultaneously it's
been a file system that has taken the brunt we can throw at it and held up
spectacularly."
http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Companies#The_Linux_Kernel_Archives
Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
defaults if it is possible
sudden power loss. That sentiment has been echoed in this thread, by
Stan I think, with statements like (paraphrasing): XFS is good for
production servers which have uninterruptible power supplies.
The resilience is due to the way the journal is written, if I
understand correctly. Maybe somebody on this list who understands it
better can confirm or deny. There is a journal_data_writeback option
for ext3 which will speed up writes to the filesystem, but reduce its
resilience to power loss. With this option enabled, I recall reading
that the ext3 benchmarks are pretty similar to XFS.
I'm not an expert, so don't take my word for it. Do some research on it
yourself, or wait for the real experts to chime in and correct me :)
-Rob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100429012405.GA8530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: thib
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Javier Barroso
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- References:
- Filesystem recommendations
- From: B. Alexander
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Ron Johnson
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Mark Allums
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Stan Hoeppner
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Mark Allums
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Stan Hoeppner
- Re: Filesystem recommendations
- From: Javier Barroso
- Filesystem recommendations
- Prev by Date: Re: Where does update-initramfs get info?
- Next by Date: Re: Filesystem recommendations
- Previous by thread: RE: Filesystem recommendations
- Next by thread: Re: Filesystem recommendations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
