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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
