On 18 Mar 2013, at 08:37, Steven Haigh wrote: > On 03/18/2013 06:34 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> >>>> Also, *why* are you mixing xfs and nfs services in the same >>>> envirnment? And what kind of NFS and XFS servers are you using? >>> >>> >>> Out of curiosity, why not ? >>> >>> In theory the choice of disk filesystem and network file sharing >>> protocol should be independent. >>> >>> How different is the practice ? >> >> I had some bad, bad experience with XFS and haven't used it since. It >> completely destabilized my bulk storage environment: things may have >> changed. >> >> I've deliberately and effectively kept my file systems below the 16 TB >> range and worked well with ext4. I've occasionally used larger scale >> commercial storage serves such as NetApp's for larger NFS environments >> since then. >> > > I use XFS on a small RAID6 array (its 2Tb - not huge), and I mount it via NFS > to other systems. I haven't had a kernel crash as yet.
We use XFS for some heavily loaded "buffer storage" systems, and we haven't had an issue - but no NFS there. We also have an NFS server using XFS (mostly because of the "project quota" feature we needed on some shares) and that's also working fine with NFSv3, serving about 200 clients; NFSv4 performance on XFS is disappointing compared to ext3 but we are not in an hurry to migrate. Cheers, Sergio -- Sergio Ballestrero - http://physics.uj.ac.za/psiwiki/Ballestrero University of Johannesburg, Physics Department ATLAS TDAQ sysadmin team - Office:75282 OnCall:164851
