One disadvantage I've seen with XFS is that you cannot shrink [0] the
file system.
For a box dedicated to network storage this shouldn't be a problem.
But in my instance I made /var a bit too large and needed to reclaim
space for /.
[0] http://xfs.org/index.php/Shrinking_Support
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/04/12 7:01 AM, 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?
>>
>
>
> we are using XFS with CentOS 6.latest on 80TB file systems, works quite
> well. handles a mix of many tiny files and very large files without
> any special tuning.
>
> Theres one big issue with NFS that requires a workaround... XFS requires
> 64 bit inodes on a large file system ('inode64'), and by default, NFS
> wants to use the inode as the unique ID for the export, this doesn't
> work as that unique ID has to be 32 bits, so you have to manually
> specify a unique identifier for each share from a given server. I
> can't remember offhand what the specific option is, but you can specify
> 1, 2, 3, 4 for the share identifiers, or any other unique integer. if
> you only export the root of a file system, tis is not a problem. this
> problem is squarely an NFS implementation problem, that code should have
> been fixed eons ago.
>
>
> --
> john r pierce N 37, W 122
> santa cruz ca mid-left coast
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
