Terry Davis wrote:
Thanks to everyone for their replies. To answer someone's point about
backups, this is for a disk based backup system. :) It has the ability to
replication at the application level to other systems. I also agree that I
want a filesystem that Red Hat will support. GFS2 is a possibility, I just
have no experience with it. On the surface, I am not sure it was designed
to be the home of over 150 million files rather a smaller number of large
files (databases). To someone else's point, checking that filesystem,
journaling, etc. are all greatly affected by these large numbers.
I am going to hammer out with the software vendor why the single volume. I
have my doubts on this requirement. It centers around DR/restore
flexibility if I understand it correctly which doesn't necessarily apply
given it is a replicated system. I would really just prefer to do multiple
4TB ext3 volumes on top of LVM. :)
Just to throw out another thought on fsck and performance, do the user space
tools for GFS2 behave similarly as those of ext2/3 in that fsck/healing
processes can only occur while the volume is unmounted? Is there a way to
tune this like with tune2fs?
I can't think why I'd be happy having a broken filesystem mounted and in
use, so I hope they work the same sort of way. Faster, preferably, but
until someone invents faster disks they're going to limit performance.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
