Benjamin Scott wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am new to ReiserFS, and this list, so my apologies for posting a > possibly annoying message, but I am looking at putting ReiserFS into > production soon, and I would like to run a few things by the experts here. > (I also have some questions regarding mkreiserfs and hash functions, but I > will post that separately.) > > First, let me post our configuration profile, just in case there are any > known issues that I did not find in my research: > > Processors : 2 x 550 MHz Pentium II Xeon (SMP) > Memory : 1 GB RAM, 2 GB swap > Storage : 605 gigabytes total > Controller : AMI MegaRAID Enterprise 1500 > > Base system: Red Hat Linux 6.2 + errata updates > C library : glibc 2.1.3 (Red Hat release 22) > C compiler : egcs 1.1.2 (Red Hat release 30) > Kernel : Linux 2.2.19, custom compile, pristine sources plus patches > Patches : AMI MegaRAID driver 1.15 > Stephen Tweedie's raw I/O (kiobuf) 2.2.18pre24 > LVM 1.0 > ReiserFS 3.5.34 (linux-2.2.19-reiserfs-3.5.34-patch.gz) > FS Tools : reiserfsprogs-3.x.0j > > Our customer is using the system for bulk file storage and scientific > processing. They dump large chunks of data (10 to 20 MB files) from > instruments onto the system. Then they chew it heavily, either locally, or > over the LAN via Samba. Intermediate data (*lots* of smaller files) and > final results are stored as well. > > During our migration from ext2 to ReiserFS, we plan on employing the LVM > and the ReiserFS resize tools available. We will start with a logical > volume (LV) of about 300 GB. After existing ext2 filesystems are phased > out, we will add their storage to the LV, and grow the ReiserFS by about 200 > GB, to a total of about 500 GB. > > I am undecided as to whether or not I want to try the "online resize" > feature of ReiserFS; does anyone have any input on that issue? > > We will have multiple full tape backups available for disaster recovery > purposes, but I would like to avoid a disaster if at all possible. :-) > > Does anyone see any problems with any of this? >
I think that you should consider using 2.4. At least reiserfs seems to get more testing last time. Thanks, vs
