On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Chris Robertson <crobert...@gci.net> wrote:

> dan wrote:
> > If the disk usage is the same as before the pool, the issue isnt
> > hardlinks not being maintained.  I am not convinced that XFS is an
> > ideal filesystem.  I'm sure it has it's merits, but I have lost data
> > on 3 filesystems ever, FAT*, XFS and NTFS.  I have never lost data on
> > reiserfs3 or ext2,3.
> >
> > Additionally, I am not convinced that it performs any better than ext3
> > in real world workloads.  I have see many comparisons showing XFS
> > marginally faster in some operations, and much faster for file
> > deletions and a few other things, but these are all simulated
> > workloads and I have never seen a comparison running all of these
> > various operations in mixed operation.  how about mixing 100MB random
> > reads with 10MB sequential writes on small files and deleting 400
> > hardlinks?
> >
> > I say switch back to ext3.
>
> Creating or resizing (you do a proper fsck before and after resizing,
> don't you?) an ext3 filesystem greater than about 50GB is painful.  The
> larger the filesystem, the more painful it gets.  Having to guess the
> number of inodes you are going to need at filesystem creation is a nice
> bonus.
>
> EXT4, btrfs, or Tux3 can't get here (and stable!) fast enough.
>

Has anyone tried JFS ? I have been using JFS in production for over a year
now with several volumes of 2T+. I have found the performance satisfactory
atleast for my needs. Besides once in a while when someone pulls the plug of
a switch (the volumes serve iscsi volumes), we have to run fsck, which again
is very fast and recovers without any problems. Just a thought.

Thanks and Regards,

Anand
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Reply via email to