On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:04:34PM -0700, PJ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov <mm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ <pauljerome@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov <mm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
> >> >>> I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
> >> >>> re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
> >> >>> starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project
> >> >>> requires ext3/ext4.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm always very cautious before jumping onto a new FS, (new in the
> >> >>> sense it is officially supported now)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks in advance!
<big snip>
> Thanks Marian, it looks like it's 2 x 9TB partitions for me, what a
> pain in the ass!
Here be dragons:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
If you're running on large spindles, benchmark the performance
during a rebuild of one drive. Yank a drive for a moment and
watch performance fall off a cliff until the RAID is made whole.
Exercize the storage using dt and fsopbench. If it survives them
intact you have little to fear.
dt: http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2005-872.html
fsopbench: http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fsopbench/
BTW, how long does a restoring a 9TB partition from tape run?
Is it longer than your SLA? I'd want to know the answer before
putting it into production.
--
Charles Polisher
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
