On 2014-05-28, m.r...@5-cent.us m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
We're looking at getting an HBR (that's a technical term, honkin' big
RAID). What I'm considering is, rather than chopping it up into 14TB or
16TB filesystems, of using xfs for really big filesystems. The question
that's come up is:
- Original Message -
| We're looking at getting an HBR (that's a technical term, honkin' big
| RAID). What I'm considering is, rather than chopping it up into 14TB
| or
| 16TB filesystems, of using xfs for really big filesystems. The
| question
| that's come up is: what's the state of xfs
On 5/28/2014 11:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
We're looking at getting an HBR (that's a technical term, honkin' big
RAID). What I'm considering is, rather than chopping it up into 14TB or
16TB filesystems, of using xfs for really big filesystems. The question
that's come up is: what's the
- Original Message -
| On 5/28/2014 11:13 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
| We're looking at getting an HBR (that's a technical term, honkin'
| big
| RAID). What I'm considering is, rather than chopping it up into
| 14TB or
| 16TB filesystems, of using xfs for really big filesystems. The
On 5/28/2014 12:35 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
Would this be the xfs_asynd chewing up CPU time bug? If that's the one, it
was just spinning and didn't actually cause problems except that the load
went berserk. In either case, there have been bugs with*every file system*
I've used with
5 matches
Mail list logo