Tanner Lovelace wrote:
Out of curiosity, why are you using ext3 for a system like that when you
admit it has serious limitations? Why not a filesystem like XFS who's
maximum file systems size is 8 exabytes[1] (16 terrabytes on 32 bit linux
systems because of os limitations).
Because ext3 is
Our company has only 56 people. Just in the last 3 months we have
added 2 servers with 1.2TB each and a 16 slot LTO3 autoloader. One is
a PE 2950 w/ 16GB ram, 2 x quad core Xeon, running VMware ESX Vi3 and
the other runs ESX Ranger Pro and Backup Exec. Prior to this, our
largest server storage
On 2/18/07, Magnus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tanner Lovelace wrote:
Out of curiosity, why are you using ext3 for a system like that when you
admit it has serious limitations? Why not a filesystem like XFS who's
maximum file systems size is 8 exabytes[1] (16 terrabytes on 32 bit linux
systems
Robert Dale wrote:
Technically, that's what the installer gives for formatting options.
The installer (the kernel running) supports JFS, XFS, and possibly
others, and will allow you to install to those partitiions.
And if I have any issues with the filesystem, Red Hat will tell me to
pound
On 2/18/07, Magnus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Dale wrote:
Technically, that's what the installer gives for formatting options.
The installer (the kernel running) supports JFS, XFS, and possibly
others, and will allow you to install to those partitiions.
And if I have any issues with
On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Jason Watts wrote:
at this point in time, who really needs 8 exabytes of storage (cept
overly
huge data farms) let alone a few terabytes
I need a few terabytes. At work, we have around 4TB of storage, on
NetApps. It's used for mail, database and file
Jason Watts wrote:
thats true, ... im talking in current times not 5 years from now...
at this point in time, who really needs 8 exabytes of storage (cept overly
huge data farms) let alone a few terabytes
I have a single server at work that requires more than a few TB of
storage for its
On 2/16/07, Jason Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my roomie got this in an email
- 16 CPUs (or cores) (in our CPU architecture)
- 4 Terabytes - Physical RAM
- 8 Exabytes - Single Filestem
you guys believe this? ... who the hell needs 8 exabytes?
You''d be amazed at some the storage
On 2/17/07, James Olin Oden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You''d be amazed at some the storage requirements for some telco
databases, especially regarding billing and auditing. Imagine the
space required to store the setup traffic for all calls in a small
telco to be later proccessed for auditing
wow, i realized big things like datafarms and email providers needed huge
amounts of storage space (i assumed it is/mostly distributed), but didnt
think the smaller side of the buissness world needed so much space
On 2/17/07, David Brain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/07, James Olin Oden
On 2/17/07, Magnus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ext3 has some very real limitations that haunt system administrators
today. Maximum filesize can be an issue but the one that has made me do
some workarounds in the past is the maximum volume size. ext4 will be a
welcome improvement as it promises to
my roomie got this in an email
- 16 CPUs (or cores) (in our CPU architecture)
- 4 Terabytes - Physical RAM
- 8 Exabytes - Single Filestem
you guys believe this? ... who the hell needs 8 exabytes?
hell, i cant even fill a 160 gig hd
--
TriLUG mailing list:
On 2/16/07, Jason Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you guys believe this? ... who the hell needs 8 exabytes?
hell, i cant even fill a 160 gig hd
Beware statements like that. They'll come back to haunt you:
13 matches
Mail list logo
