On Thursday 07 May 2009, Bent Terp wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Bent Terp wrote: > >> We've got a 110 TB xfs system in production based on a logical volume > >> striped over 9 boxes of SATA disk, works like a charm with great > >> throughput as we stripe over 3 controllers :-) > > > > Are you running x86 32bit or x86_64 ? > > > > iirc there has been problems with XFS on 32bit kernel.. stack size > > related or so? So 64bit has been the recommended way to go.. > > We run 64bit on most machines cuz they've got more than 4 gig ram. > (And any besserwissers about to sound of about PAE kernels can kindly > do so in another thread cuz I'm NOT listening!) > > As an aside, I hadn't heard of issues with 32bit xfs but in retrospect > it can see the logic in it: a lot of company-supplied code has had > 64bit issues cuz it came from a 32bit environment, but SGI was never > "most companies" :-) This is not really a 32 vs. 64 bit issue. The problem is that redhat (unlike most everyone else) builds their 32-bit kernel with 4K kernel stack size and XFS almost needs 8K kernel stacks. /Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
