ext4 has better large file support in performance and reliability I believe. Don't quote me on that, but I've read that somewhere(?)
So if the ext4 development is stable that might be a good option if going the ext route. Sounds like an awesome server. On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 15:44, Ted Deppner<[email protected]> wrote: > Cheap insurance against the need to change things. The only overhead > expense that would matter (because CPU and disk won't) would be your > time, differing between learning and using LVM versus having to change > something the hard way later on. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Alex Mandel<[email protected]> > wrote: >> I think I'm missing why LVM would be good in this situation, it seems >> like extra overhead. RAID 6 in this case offers hot swapping of up to 2 >> failing drives at the same time, so I don't plan to do any mirroring >> beyond what the RAID config offers. As for the need to change >> partitions, aside from the OS which might have it's own drives, the rest >> of the drives are all 1 partition of 8 TB. > _______________________________________________ > vox-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech > -- Scott _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
