Actually, I finally had a chance to look at the article Tim mentioned below, and it looks like ext3 is not a bad option if I change the mount options to writeback. I think I will try that and see what happens. Unfortunately I already had one of the 18 disks fail in this thing. They are Western Digital 250 GB SATA drives. Just in case anyone is wondering, I have not been having very good luck at all with the SATA drives lately. Much higher failure rate out of the box than I would like. The only good thing is that they seem to be failing in the first 72 hours during the burn in period and not weeks down the road.
Shannon Shannon Roddy wrote: > I think I am going to go with ext3 just for time sake. Looks like > reiser would have given me about 50-100 gigs more space, but it is not > too much of an issue. > it is more important that I get this thing up and running than it be > perfectly optimized. > > Shannon > > Tim Fournet wrote: > >> Found this article, looks pretty well organized. The impression I get is >> that in some cases, Reiser can be much faster, but ext3 is a safer bet. >> http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html >> >> On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 20:10, Shannon Roddy wrote: >> >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I have two 1.5 terabyte file systems that I am getting ready to >>> serve out via NFS (two 8 port 3ware SATA raid cards). I have a >>> question though: Is there any advantage to formatting this with say >>> reiser over ext3, etc? XFS? Any opinions? Hard benchmark numbers? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shannon >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> General mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> General mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
