On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 at 5:10pm, Peter Arremann wrote
> On Sunday 11 September 2005 17:02, Francois Caen wrote:
> > My concern with xfs, reiser or jfs is not really how good they are,
> > but how well they are implemented/supported in CentOS.
> >
> > My application is a huge backup-to-disk samba-accessed storage.
> > Performance and fsck-caused downtime are not important to me.
> > Integrity of the data is critical.
> >
> > I need the most reliable multi-TB filesystem I can use with CentOS/RHEL.
> >
> > And it's hard to choose between the better-but-less-supported
> > xfs/reiser/... or the well-supported but not that multi-TB-friendly
> > ext3...
> We usually have the same issue - and so far the answer has always been ext3
> simply because its easier to support. Gladly so far we haven't hit the 4TB
> limit (http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html)... always
> ended up making sliceses smaller than that for individual uses.
Having hit a similar issue (big FS, I wanted XFS, but needed to run centos
4), I just went ahead and stuck with ext3. My FS is 5.5TiB -- a software
RAID0 across 2 3w-9xxx arrays. I had no issues formatting it and have had
no issues in testing or production with it. So, it can be done. Perhaps
the bugs you're hitting are in the FC driver layer?
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
