On 10/24/2013 02:47 PM, SilverTip257 wrote:
> You didn't mention XFS.
> Just curious if you considered it or not.
Most definitely. There are a few features that I'm looking for:
1) MOST IMPORTANT: STABLE!
2) The ability to make the partition bigger by adding drives with very
minimal/no downtime.
3) The ability to remove an older, (smaller) drive or drives in order to
replace with larger capacity drives without downtime or having to copy
over all the files manually.
4) The ability to create snapshots with no downtime.
5) The ability to synchronize snapshots quickly and without having to
scan every single file. (backups)
6) Reasonable failure mode. Things *do* go south sometimes. Simple is
better, especially when it's simpler for the (typically highly stressed)
administrator.
7) Big. Basically all filesystems in question can handle our size
requirements. We might hit a 100 TB partition in the next 5 years.
I think ZFS and BTRFS are the only candidates that claim to do all the
above. Btrfs seems to have been "stable in a year or so" for as long as
I could keep a straight face around the word "Gigabyte", so it's a
non-starter at this point.
LVM2/Ext4 can do much of the above. However, horror stories abound,
particularly around very large volumes. Also, LVM2 can be terrible in
failure situations.
XFS does snapshots, but don't you have to freeze the volume first?
Xfsrestore looks interesting for backups, though I don't know if there's
a consistent "freeze point". (what about ongoing writes?) Not sure about
removing HDDs in a volume with XFS.
Not as sure about ZFS' stability on Linux (those who run direct Unix
derivatives seem to rave about it) and failure modes.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
