And be careful to leave boot partition on ext3.
Why is that? Also, does the 5.6 install dvd offer ext4 in the
graphical install? Last time I do not think I saw it.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Am 23.07.2011 00:16, schrieb Matt:
And be careful to leave boot partition on ext3.
Why is that? Also, does the 5.6 install dvd offer ext4 in the
graphical install? Last time I do not think I saw it.
grub shipping with 5.6 can not boot from ext4 formatted partitions.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:17 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 07/05/11 9:04 PM, Charles Polisher wrote:
The PostgreSQL wiki seems to say that database tables are
allocated in 1GB extents. In workloads with which I am
familiar, with an RDBMS the extents don't bounce
around all
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I just tried to install EXT4 onto a CentOS 5 machine but it failed.
Does anyone know in which repository it is?
root@usaxen01:[~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 5 (Final)
root@usaxen01:[~]$ uname -a
Linux usaxen01 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5xen #1 SMP
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Charles Polisher cpol...@surewest.netwrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than
EXT2?
The optimum on an EXT basis for a filesystem
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 07:28 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster
On 7/5/11 6:28 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than
EXT2?
The
Christopher Chan wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Charles Polisher cpol...@surewest.netwrote:
(I'm sharpening my axe for the Use ZFS, it's bulletproof discussion.)
--
Charles Polisher
___
HAHA, what's your take on ZFS then?
We've been running ZFS on a few
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:26 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
(I'm sharpening my axe for the Use ZFS, it's bulletproof discussion.)
/me puts on asbestos suit...stares...switches to asbestos armor instead.
HAHA, what's your take on ZFS then?
We've been running ZFS on a few storage servers,
On 07/05/11 7:10 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
In general and with some simplifiying assumptions, a database
consists of statically pre-allocated files. The process of extending
the files happens at birth. The relative speed over the lifetime
of the database is dominated by raw I/O, not by
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
We've been running ZFS on a few storage servers, both in the office and
for our hosting clients for about 2 years now and all I can say it that
it's rock solid.
+1
Although I have seen screams from
On 7/5/2011 1:06 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
/me wonders what an md raid array with an ext3 fs that has its journal
on an ssd in full data journal mode give in terms of performance.
I honestly haven't tried this yet, probably cause when I looked at how
this works, it's only the journal which runs
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM
anyway - which is pretty cheap these days.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
Yes, but
On 7/5/2011 1:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM
anyway - which is pretty cheap these days.
Yes, but I suppose it all depends on the needs of the server in
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/2011 1:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com
wrote:
How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM
anyway - which is pretty cheap
On 07/05/11 7:10 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
In general and with some simplifiying assumptions, a database
consists of statically pre-allocated files. The process of extending
the files happens at birth. The relative speed over the lifetime
of the database is dominated by raw I/O, not by
On 07/05/11 9:04 PM, Charles Polisher wrote:
The PostgreSQL wiki seems to say that database tables are
allocated in 1GB extents. In workloads with which I am
familiar, with an RDBMS the extents don't bounce
around all that much, i.e. the vast majority of writes do
not result in a change to
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:04:34PM -0700, PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov
Le 24/06/2011 03:44, Marian Marinov a écrit :
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had no problems with it so far. It's
used as scratch space so not too concerned about
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Alain Péan
alain.p...@lpp.polytechnique.fr wrote:
Le 24/06/2011 03:44, Marian Marinov a écrit :
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had no problems with it so far. It's
used as scratch space so not
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project
requires ext3/ext4.
I'm always
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for
PJ writes:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project
requires
Just another happy camper here. We have ext4 for some high-volume servers
and have experienced no operational problems.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:31:28 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:16 PM, PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for
On 6/23/2011 12:16 PM, PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this
...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Marian Marinov
Sent: Friday, 24 June 2011 7:48 a.m.
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ext4 in CentOS 5.6?
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:31:28 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had no problems with it so far. It's
used as scratch space so not too concerned about performance.
--Russell
I have compared the
On 6/23/11 8:44 PM, Marian Marinov wrote:
I have compared the performance of both XFS and Ext4. And since I use those
big machines for backups, for me the write performance was very important.
XFS was almost twice slower.
Twice slower? At what kind of operations? I don't think any filesystem
37 matches
Mail list logo
