Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 6/27/2011 12:42 AM, Christ Schlacta wrote: just requires some special consideration. I still install through apt-get install, and it works flawlessly. it's much like a lot of driver packages where you still have to compile them to make them work, it just does it auto-magically. If these instructions are current http://zfsonlinux.org/spl-building-deb.html then you are portraying the process as being much simpler than it really is. The real power of ZFS is with very large JBODs, or multiples of same. When you state it works flawlessly, how many disks are you talking about? What features have you actually tested? Or do you simply have a single disk formatted with ZFS? I'm guessing most folks here actually interested in ZFS aren't the single disk crowd, and want to know if ZFS Linux is working flawlessly with real storage. -- Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote: On 6/27/2011 12:42 AM, Christ Schlacta wrote: just requires some special consideration. I still install through apt-get install, and it works flawlessly. it's much like a lot of driver packages where you still have to compile them to make them work, it just does it auto-magically. If these instructions are current http://zfsonlinux.org/spl-building-deb.html then you are portraying the process as being much simpler than it really is. The real power of ZFS is with very large JBODs, or multiples of same. When you state it works flawlessly, how many disks are you talking about? What features have you actually tested? Or do you simply have a single disk formatted with ZFS? I'm guessing most folks here actually interested in ZFS aren't the single disk crowd, and want to know if ZFS Linux is working flawlessly with real storage. I have been watching and testing zfs for a few years on linux. I have not used the kernel module yet (still worried that development will slow down at some time forcing me to be stuck on some old kernel version) however the fuse module is now to a state that it is usable. I am not using it in production at work however. Besides the experimental nature of this project I believe there are still are a few unacceptable design problems with zfs. One such problem is the inability to move a dead drive out of a zpool without having to recreate the pool. And then also the inability to expand a zfs raid without having to add a new raid. John -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy it soon on a home server. Just a few minor niceties missing for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while. I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN environment yet, but soon~ zvol has been there from zfs for a while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the closest I'd trust it in production yet. On 6/25/2011 17:48, Charles Weber wrote: I have a ~100 TB multi server multi SAN XFS/Samba deployment and have been using it since early fedora core days. EXT4 is now where I would consider using it instead of XFS. But with XFS and LVM I have trivial and very quick formatting, partition resizing and partition duplicating. It has been great. I would like some of the ZFS/BTRFS or GFS2 advantages but hey on a UPS, XFS just works and it is proven. On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Grantgrantlid...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Christian PERRIERbubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Linda W (sa...@tlinx.org): I regret misinforming anyone. I don't think you did..:-) You mentioned xfs as a very well supported FS and we later were reminded that its support was developed by Jeremy. I think this is compliant with XFS is very well supported and one can rely on this code... -- Thanks everyone for a most interesting and useful thread. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote: ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy it soon on a home server. Just a few minor niceties missing for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while. I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN environment yet, but soon~ zvol has been there from zfs for a while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the closest I'd trust it in production yet. Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(. Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 6/26/2011 3:09 AM, Christ Schlacta wrote: ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy it soon on a home server. Just a few minor niceties missing for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while. I think your personal definition of production ready is very different from that of most folks WRT their production servers. Case in point, from: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html The ZFS code can be modified to build as a CDDL licensed kernel module which is not distributed as part of the Linux kernel. This makes a Native ZFS on Linux implementation possible if you are willing to download and build it yourself. Carefully note the last sentence. Most SAs aren't going to be comfortable with such a situation, for many glaringly obvious reasons. As long as it's tied to the CDDL, requires manual installation, and has no support from distros (RedHat/SuSE), ZFS Linux will never be production ready, at least not for the majority. -- Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 6/26/2011 5:13 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote: ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy it soon on a home server. Just a few minor niceties missing for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while. I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN environment yet, but soon~ zvol has been there from zfs for a while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the closest I'd trust it in production yet. Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(. Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem. Exactly. What puzzles me is that Oracle released BTRFS under GPL. Oracle now owns ZFS as well. Why aren't they GPL'ing ZFS for full inclusion in Linux, and filesystem licensing consistency? Do they fear this eroding SPARC box sales? Other market forces have almost killed SPARC already so I can't see that as a legitimate concern. Ellison obviously has some $$ reason for not GPL'ing ZFS, whether based in market reality or not. -- Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 6/26/2011 15:13, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote: ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy it soon on a home server. Just a few minor niceties missing for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while. I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN environment yet, but soon~ zvol has been there from zfs for a while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the closest I'd trust it in production yet. Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(. Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem. Jeremy. just requires some special consideration. I still install through apt-get install, and it works flawlessly. it's much like a lot of driver packages where you still have to compile them to make them work, it just does it auto-magically. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 6/26/2011 17:18, Stan Hoeppner wrote: On 6/26/2011 5:13 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote: ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy it soon on a home server. Just a few minor niceties missing for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while. I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN environment yet, but soon~ zvol has been there from zfs for a while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the closest I'd trust it in production yet. Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(. Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem. Exactly. What puzzles me is that Oracle released BTRFS under GPL. Oracle now owns ZFS as well. Why aren't they GPL'ing ZFS for full inclusion in Linux, and filesystem licensing consistency? Do they fear this eroding SPARC box sales? Other market forces have almost killed SPARC already so I can't see that as a legitimate concern. Ellison obviously has some $$ reason for not GPL'ing ZFS, whether based in market reality or not. they're trying to un-entrench their company in all the philanthropy, so they bought some stuff that wasn't encumbered with the GPL. (my personal opinion on their perspective, not official in any capacity) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
Jeremy Allison wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:16:00PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote: I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something else. I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most testing there. No, it was originally developed over SunOS ufs. I did the xfs work when I was @ SGI doing the 64-bit Samba port, so it's one of the older supported filesystems though. Jeremy. Sorry, I've been suitably disillusioned -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
Linda W wrote: No, it was originally developed over SunOS ufs. I did the xfs work when I was @ SGI doing the 64-bit Samba port, so it's one of the older supported filesystems though. Jeremy. Sorry, I've been suitably disillusioned FWIW, I was at Sun for 6 years before I spent 6 years @sgi, but I was @ sgi for a couple of years before I heard of samba and you working there...so I can how I would have missed it. I regret misinforming anyone. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 6/24/2011 5:31 PM, John Drescher wrote: I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most testing there. Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd strongly recommend it. If not, ext4 might be safer (with write through). It will be slower, but safer. With a UPS, XFS's default 'write-back', will give the fastest performance for large file writes (I think reads as well). It's worst performance is on removing large numbers of files, as that is pretty much a synchronous operation... I would just use ext4, it does not have the ext3 large file slowness or xfs slowdown with lots of small files. xfs slowdown with lots of small files is no longer true. To be accurate, the complaint was never with lots small files but with metadata write performance, i.e. deleting, renaming, changing attributes, etc, of lots of any sized files--operations that saturate the log journal. This poor reputation was gained long ago because XFS yielded relatively poor performance with operations such as rm -rf on a kernel source tree. Such an operation is metadata write intensive and previously would bring the XFS log journal to its knees, saturating the physical IO channel(s) to the disk subsystem, creating a severe bottleneck. Today this type of operation is as fast as EXT4 thanks to Dave Chinner's ingenious delayed logging patch. It in essence pushes much of the previous journal IO operations into memory, consolidates the log writes, and thus decreases actual disk IO eliminating the bottleneck: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/filesystems/xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt -- Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
Quoting Linda W (sa...@tlinx.org): I regret misinforming anyone. I don't think you did..:-) You mentioned xfs as a very well supported FS and we later were reminded that its support was developed by Jeremy. I think this is compliant with XFS is very well supported and one can rely on this code... -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Linda W (sa...@tlinx.org): I regret misinforming anyone. I don't think you did..:-) You mentioned xfs as a very well supported FS and we later were reminded that its support was developed by Jeremy. I think this is compliant with XFS is very well supported and one can rely on this code... -- Thanks everyone for a most interesting and useful thread. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
I have a ~100 TB multi server multi SAN XFS/Samba deployment and have been using it since early fedora core days. EXT4 is now where I would consider using it instead of XFS. But with XFS and LVM I have trivial and very quick formatting, partition resizing and partition duplicating. It has been great. I would like some of the ZFS/BTRFS or GFS2 advantages but hey on a UPS, XFS just works and it is proven. On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Grant grantlid...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote: Quoting Linda W (sa...@tlinx.org): I regret misinforming anyone. I don't think you did..:-) You mentioned xfs as a very well supported FS and we later were reminded that its support was developed by Jeremy. I think this is compliant with XFS is very well supported and one can rely on this code... -- Thanks everyone for a most interesting and useful thread. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] filesystem of choice?
I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something else. We have a lot more linux users than Windows users but the Windows users have more problems with slow access. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote: I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something else. We have a lot more linux users than Windows users but the Windows users have more problems with slow access. I use ext4 on mine without any issues. Since you're unlikely to change the file system once it's set up, why not go for the more modern version? It's stable and will probably receive better support over the long run. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
I vote for ext4 also, we have been running on that for a few years with no issues.. On 06/24/2011 10:22 AM, Gary Dale wrote: On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote: I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something else. We have a lot more linux users than Windows users but the Windows users have more problems with slow access. I use ext4 on mine without any issues. Since you're unlikely to change the file system once it's set up, why not go for the more modern version? It's stable and will probably receive better support over the long run. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote: I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something else. I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most testing there. Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd strongly recommend it. If not, ext4 might be safer (with write through). It will be slower, but safer. With a UPS, XFS's default 'write-back', will give the fastest performance for large file writes (I think reads as well). It's worst performance is on removing large numbers of files, as that is pretty much a synchronous operation... -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most testing there. Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd strongly recommend it. If not, ext4 might be safer (with write through). It will be slower, but safer. With a UPS, XFS's default 'write-back', will give the fastest performance for large file writes (I think reads as well). It's worst performance is on removing large numbers of files, as that is pretty much a synchronous operation... I would just use ext4, it does not have the ext3 large file slowness or xfs slowdown with lots of small files. John -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice? (app-dependant, but I prefer xfs for larger files)
John Drescher wrote: � � � �I would use 'xfs'. �I believe samba was originally developed over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most testing there. �Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd strongly recommend it. � If not, ext4 might be safer (with write through). � It will be slower, but safer. � � � �With a UPS, XFS's default 'write-back', will give the fastest performance for large file writes (I think reads as well). � It's worst performance is on removing large numbers of files, as that is pretty much a �synchronous operation... I would just use ext4, it does not have the ext3 large file slowness or xfs slowdown with lots of small files. John xfs doesn't have much of a slowdown with small files other than in deleting them. That said, it *was* optimized for people wanting to stream media (multiple channels) in real time... It was designed to excel with large file I/O. So it's possible benchmarks may show some small advantages in small file I/O, (outside of deletes), but most of those problems can be ameliorated or eliminated if you are on good hardware (UPS backedup, any RAID's w/battery backed up cache) -- then you might also improve performance by turning on/of write barriers depending on your HW. XFS should also be tuned for RAID stripe size for optimal performance and give a large Metadata area when creating it (128M) or 32768b (b=4k blocks); @mount time, optimal speed options that I use include defaults,noatime,swalloc,largeio,logbsize=256 (and possibly nobarriers depending on hw)... But it really depends on your HW and your usage. If you don't need fast file read/write on large files my large array with 2 striped, 6,7.2k-SATA-disk RAID5's (a 'RAID50'), gets 1GB/s read/write on large I/O's Speeds are comparable to raw device access. Usually, for large reads/writes, using *direct access*, is 15-20% faster than going through the linux-file buffers (for I/O's that exceed my system's memory size, thus making the cache effectively useless). you still get all the overhead of fs-cache management, but no benefit when moving around files larger than sysmem. That overhead may make not make much difference with a single 7.2k sata with top xfer rate of 120-140MB/s (2-3TB), but as you up the data rate, the overhead becomes more significant. I have not benched xfs against ext4, but when I benched it against ext3, it was faster in all tests except large# (500-1000 files at a time) file-deletions. BTRFS looks promising, but I, _personally_, think it not quite ready for production systems. I'm sure ext4 has improved much, and excels in some benchmarks, just as xfs excels in some -- it would depend on user usage. Of course xfs has been around since ... um...the mid 90's...so it has been fairly well tested...(though the port on linux is always 'ongoing' due to new kernel interfaces and ongoing xfs performance optimizations)... -- but that's a measurement specific to my I/O rate and somewhat on my CPUs' speeds (2x2.67MHz Xeon w/4 Core's ea). -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:16:00PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote: I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something else. I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most testing there. No, it was originally developed over SunOS ufs. I did the xfs work when I was @ SGI doing the 64-bit Samba port, so it's one of the older supported filesystems though. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
