On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Michael Kress wrote:
>>
>> I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file
>> systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature.
>> So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is
>> included in the 5.2 live cd?
>
> Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and
> you'll figure it out quickly.
>
>> Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it
>> still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have
>> better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with
>> moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
>
> Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different
> scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS
> will perform better than another.
>
> XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with
> large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you
> want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on
several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new
installations as ``yum update'' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now
fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.
I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with
extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
Fax: (206) 232-9186
Perhaps, when committing your first federal crime, it would be unwise to
slap your name and address on it and mail it to 10,000 people. --Dogbert
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
