Kirk Bocek wrote:
> Nathan Grennan wrote:
>
>> XFS, fast, but can fail under load, does XORs of data, so a bad write,
>> as in power failure, can mean garbage in a file. It is meta-data only
>> journaling. Also slow on deletes.
>>
>
> You and several others point to a greater chance for data corruption.
> However, this host will be on a UPS. The system will be safely shut down
> before the power goes off. Isn't that enough protection?
>
Kirk,
how did you decide about the xfs question?
I almost have the same setup as you do (9550SXU-LP, dual xeon on a
Supermicro X6DH8-G2+, 4SATA-II hds attached, raid5) and I'm following
the discussion, but as it grew quite big, I must have lost the trail to
your decision. :)
I made my bonnie++ tests with xfs under xen and I'm not quite content
(still searching for the speed gain to include into the xen enabled
kernel). To express it briefly, xen kernel has worse performance than
the centos-kernel. Anyways, xfs is a whole lotta faster than ext3.
What worries me a little bit is peoples' fear about xfs being unsafe
under high load. That's why I'd like to hear something about your decision.
Thanks
Michael
--
Michael Kress, kress@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net
P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
