Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
A little data never hurts. Even if the numbers mean little.
test 1 - Debian Linux 6.0.5 on x86_64
Given the fact, that you did not run star -no-fifo, you compare an insecure
implementation (gtar never calls fsync(2)) with a secure by default
Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
A little data never hurts. Even if the numbers mean little.
test 1 - Debian Linux 6.0.5 on x86_64
Given the fact, that you did not run star -no-fifo, you compare an
insecure
implementation (gtar never calls fsync(2)) with a secure by
Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
Given the fact, that you did not run star -no-fifo, you compare an
insecure
implementation (gtar never calls fsync(2)) with a secure by default
implementation (star).
Comparison numbers are only valid of the tests run are the same.
So
Comparison numbers are only valid of the tests run are the same.
So here is the UFS test once more without the compression and
with -no-fifo :
jupiter-sparc-SunOS5.10 # ptime /opt/schily/bin/star -x -xdir -xdot
-no-fifo -U file=../linux-3.5.1.tar
star: 46849 blocks + 0 bytes
Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
Comparison numbers are only valid of the tests run are the same.
So here is the UFS test once more without the compression and
with -no-fifo :
jupiter-sparc-SunOS5.10 # ptime /opt/schily/bin/star -x -xdir -xdot
-no-fifo -U
Well, this machine is 11 years old now.
This explains the large amount of CPU time.
Quad 900MHz UltraSparc III processors are more than
enough to handle a simple filesystem.
The server runs fine, is patched up to date. The UFS filesystem that
was
used is actually the root
Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote:
On 08/04/2012 07:01 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
I have a hard time imagining that you'd get useful information from
cross-posting this to the FreeBSD and CentOS lists. Their
Whatever you do, don't use bemchmarks to compare Linux with other OS,
Linux cheats.
A benchmark tries to do something completed and then get the time for
that but
I've seen Linux to try it's best to prevent this completed set of
actions to
happen withing a known time.
If I
On 08/04/2012 07:01 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
I have a hard time imagining that you'd get useful information from
cross-posting this to the FreeBSD and CentOS lists. Their
implementations of filesystems are completely
Pasi Kärkkäinen pa...@iki.fi wrote:
The ZFS code base is stable, the problem is the VFS interface in Linux and
that
applies to all filesystems
Hello,
Care to explain what's the problem in Linux VFS layer ?
The VFS layer was introduced in 1980 by Bill Joy when he started the
On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 10:21 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 08/04/2012 09:36 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you. very usefull
i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
i'll send you btrfs result for you.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 08:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I would not call it a rant but a food for thought.
agreed!
ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4.
ZFS is now
Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 08:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I would not call it a rant but a food for thought.
agreed!
ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4.
ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years.
but ZFS has not had a stable
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Again:
- NFSv2 (from 1988) allows 32 Bytes for a NFS file handle
- NFSv3 (from 1990) allows 64 Bytes for a NFS file handle
- NFSv4 (from 2004) has no hard limit here
With the 32 byte file handle, there are still 12 bytes (including
On 8/4/2012 9:21 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I
like tried and true over experimental.
xfs still has at
Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 20:32, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
ZFS is the best I know for
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Theres one big issue with NFS that requires a workaround... XFS requires
64 bit inodes on a large file system ('inode64'), and by default, NFS
wants to use the inode as the unique ID for the export, this doesn't
work as that unique ID has to be 32
Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
What is the age of BTRFS?
BTRFS presentation, mid-2007
https://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/btrfs-ukuug.pdf
That makes it 6 years in
Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly some. Samba has been asking for streams support for a while,
and if reiser4 leads the way in an implementation that does not break
unix file semantics, jfs (and possibly other file systems) may follow.
Microsoft tried to advertize their
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
integrated so growing a file system is a one step process that takes
care of both the LVM and JFS online in a single command.
# chfs -size=+10G /home
hard to be much simpler than that!
ZFS is simpler than that ;-)
If you enabled the zpool
On 08/04/2012 10:05 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:32 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
JFS is the primary file system for AIX on their big Power servers, and
on those, it performs very very well. the utilities are are fully
integrated so growing a file system is a one step process that takes
care of both
On 08/05/12 3:40 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
ZFS is simpler than that ;-)
well aware, I run ZFS on Solaris.
BTW: where do you expect the additional 10G to come from in your example?
from the LVM pool containing /home ... Linux LVM also came from IBM, and was
based on the LVM of AIX
--
2012/8/5 Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org:
On 08/04/2012 10:05 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
support
On 08/05/12 3:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Your claim is aproximately correct for NFSv2 (1988) but wrong for other NFS
versions.
The server was using NFS V3/V4 in CentOS 6.2 earlier this year, and
various clients, including Solaris 10. The problems were reported from
our overseas
On 08/05/2012 07:14 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
from the LVM pool containing /home ... Linux LVM also came from IBM, and
was based on the LVM of AIX
AIX had a LogicalVolume Manager, sure - but I dont think thats where the
linux LVM came from - the Sistina guys had a fairly independent
On 08/05/2012 06:46 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
Yes, however my data loss experience was with IBM´s OS/2 port of JFS.
Probably related to one of these
http://www.os2voice.org/warpcast/1999-08/37CC5F9D.htm
I think its safe to assume that OS/2 experience from 1998 is pretty much
irrelevant to the
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
AIX had a LogicalVolume Manager, sure - but I dont think thats where the
linux LVM came from - the Sistina guys had a fairly independent
implementation. And the Linux LVM looks a lot more like the HP variant
than the
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
I think its safe to assume that OS/2 experience from 1998 is pretty much
irrelevant to the conversation here, and JFS on linux
My data loss was in 2002. :-p
You are putting words in my mouth. Re-read what I posted
On 08/05/12 11:33 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
And the Linux LVM looks a lot more like the HP variant
than the IBM one.
ah, you're right, googing and wikipedia says, the linux implementation
was based on HPUX, I was mistaken thinking IBM had provided their LVM code.
--
john r pierce
On 08/04/2012 08:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I would not call it a rant but a food for thought.
agreed!
ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4.
ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years.
but ZFS has not had a stable release in Linux as yet, making it still be
negative
On 08/05/2012 07:40 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
AIX had a LogicalVolume Manager, sure - but I dont think thats where the
linux LVM came from - the Sistina guys had a fairly independent
implementation. And the Linux LVM looks a lot more like the HP variant
than the IBM one.
And all LVM
On 08/05/2012 04:05 AM, Keith Keller wrote:
I've looked into ZFS on linux, but it still seems not quite ready for
real production use. I'd love to test it on a less crucial server when
I get the chance. Their FAQ claims RHEL 6.0 support:
Excellent! Do share your test / play experience.
--
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
you seem confused about what a filesystem and volume management is.
http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/BTRFS_Fun
Btrfs, often compared to ZFS, is offering some interesting features like:
(snip)
Built-in storage pool
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 08/05/12 3:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Your claim is aproximately correct for NFSv2 (1988) but wrong for other NFS
versions.
The server was using NFS V3/V4 in CentOS 6.2 earlier this year, and
various clients, including Solaris 10. The
On 08/05/12 3:18 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 08/05/12 3:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Your claim is aproximately correct for NFSv2 (1988) but wrong for other NFS
versions.
The server was using NFS V3/V4 in CentOS 6.2 earlier this year, and
various
XFS: Recent and Future Adventures in Filesystem Scalability - Dave Chinner
Uploaded by linuxconfau2012 on Jan 19, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1feature=endscreenv=FegjLbCnoBw
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:25 PM, SilverTip257 silvertip...@gmail.com wrote:
Recent and Future Adventures in Filesystem Scalability - Dave Chinner
Thanks for that vid!
FC
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote:
hello
i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
thank you
———
Ashkan R
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario.
but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true?
———
Ashkan R
On Aug 4, 2012 6:39 PM, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote:
hello
i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
i want to share it on
On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario.
but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true?
———
Ashkan R
On Aug 4, 2012 6:39 PM, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote:
hello
i have 16tb
thank you. very usefull
i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
i'll send you btrfs result for you.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario.
but i think ext4 is notbas fast as
On 04.08.2012 15:36, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you. very usefull
i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
i'll send you btrfs result for you.
Ilsistemista.net seems to have some good articles about filesystems.
e.g.
On 08/04/2012 09:36 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you. very usefull
i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
i'll send you btrfs result for you.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified
On 04.08.2012 16:36, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you. very usefull
i think i'll try btrfs or jfs,
i'll send you btrfs result for you.
Please note: The Btrfs code of CentOS 6.3 is based on kernel 2.6.32.
This is very experimental.
If you want to try Btrfs, then use kernel 3.2 or higher.
Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote:
ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no
testing.
If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology
preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes.
Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
face the truth!
there is no ZFS for linux
there will never be
that you do not like GPL, Linux etc. at all will
not change anything, not now and not in the future
What do you expect from spreading lies against me?
You are off topic, so please
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At
the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your
work in the past, I know you
Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At
the moment your statement is just a rant, and having
On 04.08.2012 20:32, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
ZFS is the best I know for filesystems = 2 TB and in case you
thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs??
is it comparable with others??
———
Ashkan R
On Aug 5, 2012 12:02 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Using BTRFS now is
On 08/04/12 7:01 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
hello
i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
we are using XFS with CentOS 6.latest on 80TB file systems, works quite
well. handles a mix of many tiny files and very
On 08/04/12 12:48 PM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs??
is it comparable with others??
it works very well on IBM AIX, but I see very little support or usage
from the Linux community.
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz
One disadvantage I've seen with XFS is that you cannot shrink [0] the
file system.
For a box dedicated to network storage this shouldn't be a problem.
But in my instance I made /var a bit too large and needed to reclaim
space for /.
[0] http://xfs.org/index.php/Shrinking_Support
---~~.~~---
Mike
On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I
like tried and true
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
What is the age of BTRFS?
BTRFS presentation, mid-2007
https://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/btrfs-ukuug.pdf
That makes it 6 years in development. Next...
FC
--
During times of
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years.
FUD alert...
https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-japan/bo
---
LinuxCon Japan 2012 | Presentations
On The Way to a
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM, ashkab rahmani ashkan...@gmail.com wrote:
thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs??
is it comparable with others??
I was very pro-JFS... until I lost 10gig of very important data, and
back then (2002) there was no way to recover a JFS volume (the data
On 08/04/12 8:26 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
Dunno if IBM did much to JFS after that... haven´t been following
their work wrt JFS...
JFS is the primary file system for AIX on their big Power servers, and
on those, it performs very very well. the utilities are are fully
integrated so growing
59 matches
Mail list logo
