On 9/26/06, Hilliard, Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose the RedHat response would be to run GFS? But we only have one > server, not a cluster. And it seems overly-complex considering the > existence of XFS. GFS is very simple to use on a single system. You don't need to use cluster. You can format it with the lock_nolock option. Also, GFS2 is built into the kernel now.
I think one of the big problems is that there is a lot of "belief" involved in what filesystem type to use. The one thing that I do not have as a person who is trying to figure out what the best system is: a neutral benchmark comparing xfs, ext3, reiser3, reiser4 on a set of standardized loads with an open set of requirements to show how that is comparable to various real-world loads: NNTP, SMTP, HTTP, database loads (large number of files, small number of files,etc). it doesnt have to show that ext3 is always the best.. but it does need to show how someone is supposed to "tune" an ext3 filesystem to better meet those needs.. as most of the time I get a "xfs works better on this out of the box" and I have NO IDEA where to find any tuning for ext3 etc.. [I have spent multiple fruitless google/etc searches on finding this from experts.] -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
