On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 18:46 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 at 6:43pm, Jake wrote
>
> > I should say that I STRONGLY recommend not creating ext3 file systems in the
> > 2TB+ range - fsck takes too long and you'd hate to get hit by one of those
> > in what is supposed to be a "quick" reboot...and disabling them on the file
> > system isn't a good idea either.
>
> On the other hand, nothing is as well supported on RHEL/CentOS as is ext3.
> So if you're data is really important to you, think hard about using
> another FS.
Actually, on RHEL, the *only* filesystems that upstream *officially*
supports are ext2/3 and GFS. Not XFS, nor reiser, nor JFS. Nada...
Well, maybe FAT for USB-attached storage... ;)
But if you're using CentOS, it's entirely up to you... If I were in
RHEL-land (meaning: at a company willing to pony up for licenses), I'd
consider a GFS2 cluster shared out via NFS. Or maybe an OCFS2 NFS
cluster. If at a company using CentOS, I'd consider an OFCS2/NFS
cluster or heartbeat/XFS/NFS. For home? XFS (or JFS if you like). But
then, I'm willing (and capable) of supporting the mess I create. It all
depends upon one's comfort level with getting out of a jam when one
strays out of the "sweet spots" of available help...
-I
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
