Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread cs 

On 12Oct2016 09:40, Mike Wright  wrote:

On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:

On 10.10.2016, Gordon Messmer wrote:


Ext4 is probably a better option for a filesystem with a large number of small 
files.  XFS
continues to be slower for metadata operations.


It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case.


Given those, would you go so far as to recommend xfs in lieu of ext4 for 
general usage?


Yes.

Cameron Simpson 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread cs 

On 12Oct2016 08:40, Gordon Messmer  wrote:

On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:

"Never needs fsck"? What crazy alternate reality do you live in?


It's only slightly exaggerated. XFS has online fsck, which means that 
the kernel can fix some errors as it encounters them. Others... well, 
I *have* seen XFS require an offline fsck on a Linux NAS appliance, so I know 
"never" isn't literally true.


Except it the wildest scenarios, XFS fsks at mount, almost immediately. Go and 
cat (yes, cat) the fsck.xfs command. Its data processes are reliable and well 
behaved, and it is extensively tested.


"Never" is indeed not _literally_ true, but it is effectively true, far far far 
far more than is so with ext4. Ext4 really needs fsck after an unclean unmount, 
and it is not cheap for large filesystems.


The two are like night and day in the recovery scenario (== xfs pretty much 
never needs manual recovery, and recover is very fast). Even mkfs is light 
night and day with xfs vs ext4.


Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread George N. White III 
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gordon Messmer 
wrote:

> On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
>
>> It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case.
>>
>
>
> I suggest that users evaluate their options under their own workload.
> When I ran tests last year on CentOS 7 for rsnapshot storing maildirs (the
> exact workload in question here), ext4 was significantly faster on the
> hardware I was using.



There are some other considerations.  XFS has a good track record for large
numerical calculations, video production, and remote sensing.  These
are applications where the data are lost due to downtime recovering from a
crash are much larger than the data that was "in flight" when the crash
occurred.  XFS puts priority on metadata consistency, so filesystems are up
and running very quickly after a crash.

There are applications where losing a few bytes of data should "never"
happen, even it results in substantial downtime.






>
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
George N. White III 
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Gordon Messmer 

On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:

It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case.



I suggest that users evaluate their options under their own workload.  
When I ran tests last year on CentOS 7 for rsnapshot storing maildirs 
(the exact workload in question here), ext4 was significantly faster on 
the hardware I was using.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Mike Wright 

On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:

On 10.10.2016, Gordon Messmer wrote:


Ext4 is probably a better option for a filesystem with a large number of small 
files.  XFS
continues to be slower for metadata operations.


It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case.


Given those, would you go so far as to recommend xfs in lieu of ext4 for 
general usage?

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Heinz Diehl 
On 10.10.2016, Gordon Messmer wrote: 

> Ext4 is probably a better option for a filesystem with a large number of 
> small files.  XFS
> continues to be slower for metadata operations.

It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Gordon Messmer 

On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
"Never needs fsck"? What crazy alternate reality do you live in? 



It's only slightly exaggerated. XFS has online fsck, which means that 
the kernel can fix some errors as it encounters them. Others... well, I 
*have* seen XFS require an offline fsck on a Linux NAS appliance, so I 
know "never" isn't literally true.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Alt tab with 2+ monitors

2016-10-12 Thread Cássio Pereira 
So, Ubuntu handles alt+tab correctly when you have more than one monitor.
It displays the app switcher on the window you're currently active on.

Fedora always displays the app switcher on the primary monitor.

Any way to display it on all monitors or, ideally, only on the one you're
currently working on?

I'm using Fedora 24 with Gnome 3.

Thanks,

Cássio

--
Cássio M. M. Pereira, PhD
Head of Data Science
Veridu
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth 

On 10/10/2016 04:58 PM, c...@zip.com.au wrote:
Use XFS. It is stable; never needs fsck. If ext4 needs to repair it will take 
days/weeks on a filesystem that size, and need insane amounts of RAM (if the NAS 
is hosting this, it may not have much RAM).


Both will work until you need to fsck (eg power outage or other instant/unclean 
shutdown). After that, you will wish you were using XFS. 


"Never needs fsck"? What crazy alternate reality do you live in?

Outrageous claims like this just don't have any place on this list. If you want to 
have a rant you're welcome to start a blog.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Screen rapidly blanking on and off

2016-10-12 Thread Roberto Ragusa 
On 10/11/2016 08:19 PM, Tim Evans wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 10:55 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:

>> In my case I see instants of black screen on a Lenovo P50 with
>> Fedora 24, using Intel graphics.
>>
>> Looks like a refresh problem, or maybe something related to switching
>> the panel to the right gfx adapter (there is a dormant nvidia too,
>> with nouveau blacklisted).
>>
>> My compositor is kwin.
>>
> 
> Thank you, Roberto.  My T530 also has Intel graphics, but I have not 
> installed the Nvidia drivers--only the Nouveau that was installed at install 
> time. Not sure what you mean about "switching" adaptors.

I do not have the nvidia binary driver ("dormant nvidia" was referring to 
hardware).
I blacklisted nouveau, so only the Intel graphics is available.

By "switching" I was intending that when you have two graphics adapter, the 
physical
connection of the LCD panel to the adapter output happens through a switcher,
controlled by software. Having some moments of black screen, I was wondering
if the switch was going to nvidia and back to intel for some strange reason.

-- 
   Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org