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! <nux@xxxxxxxxx> 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 others. is it true? >>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> Personally, I would use ext4 ... faster is not always better. 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 over experimental.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
