To start I wish to that you for the swift response on this
issue. I do not think that I would get such a quick
response from a proprietary (closed-source) company. Open
Source :-).
To respond to one the comments about large file systems
?recommend you split it in several smaller (2-4TB)
filesystems ?
This is not feasible in many situations. In some
situations 2-4TB is not even a reasonable starting point.
A little background.
I have been using RH from v2 to v9. and in v9 I did get an
install ISO of RH9 that included XFS support. Way back
then I used it on a 1.4TB PATA hardware raid 5 (A lot of
disk for it time). The system is still operational with
out any FS issues short of failed drives. Fixed with the
hot spares on the system. in five years of operation the
system has had one outage a maintenance reboot Less then
2min down). After RH9 I switched to Centos.
The system that I am currently configuring with 7+ TB of
storage is one of the smaller storage servers for our
systems. Using the same configuration with more drives we
are planning several 20TB+ systems.
For the work we do a single file system over 100TB is not
unreasonable. We will be replacing a 80TB SAN system based
on StorNext with a Isilon system with 10G network
connections.
If there was a way to create a Linux (Centos) 100TB ?
500TB or larger clustered file system with the nodes
connected via infiniband that was easily manageable with
throughput that can support multiple 10Gbps Ethernet
connections I would be very interested.
And once more thanks for the fast response.
Mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
