[TriLUG] "Best" file system for a 20TB array - CentOS 5.4

[Joseph Tate]

The only caveat for XFS is that it tends to cache a lot in RAM/disk
cache, and can also write metadata before data, so if your UPS
batteries are dead, or you don't have battery backed RAID, or if you
experience kernel crashes, you may lose significant data.  I used XFS
on a laptop once.  Bad idea.

If you have server class hardware, a working UPS, and no panics, then
I recommend reading: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ.

P.S.  I read [1] that unless configured to work more like ext3, ext4
has the same problem of writing metadata before data and delaying
writeback for up to 150 seconds.

[1] http://www.purinchu.net/wp/2009/05/25/xfs-has-got-to-go/ and
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/03/12/delayed-allocation-and-the-zero-length-file-problem/

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Lance A. Brown <lance at bearcircle.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ron Kelley said the following on 4/5/2010 4:26 PM:
>> Thanks!  Is xfs stable enough to use now?  Last time I read about
>> xfs, it was still in test/dev phase.  But, that has been some time
>> ago...
>
> XFS isn't available in the core CentOS repos, but is in the Extras
> repository and is quite ready for production.  It's worked well for me
> for months.  I've got about 4.5 TB of data in three filesystems being
> served up on NFS.  Works fine.
>
> --[Lance]
>
> --
>  GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9
>  CACert.org Assurer
> --
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ          : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>



-- 
Joseph Tate
Personal e-mail: jtate AT dragonstrider DOT com
Web: http://www.dragonstrider.com