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!" <nux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>> No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-)
>>
>> As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS
>> and
>> it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora.
>>
>> --
>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>
>> Nux!
>> www.nux.ro
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it
in some scenarios.
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.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
