Re: XFS or btrfs for production systems with modern Kernel?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07.06.2013, at 16:57, Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Am 07.06.2013 16:31, schrieb Sage Weil:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Oliver Schulz wrote:

Btrfs is the longer-term plan, but we haven't done as much testing there
yet, and in particular, there is a bug in 3.9 that is triggered by a
power-cycle and the fixes aren't yet backported to 3.9 stable.  Until we
have done more validation, we still recommend XFS.

The last time we did aging tests on btrfs performance was very good
(better than xfs) initially but then trailed off as things fragmented.
This was ~3.2 era.  We haven't repeated that yet for newer kernels.  I
suspect it is better now, but I don't know how much better...

Just another data point - we have 10 servers with 64 OSD all on btrfs. Initially we started out with Ubuntu 12.10 servers, but experienced btrfs related kernel panics and have migrated the offending servers to 13.04. Yesterday one of these machines locked up with btrfs issues (that weren't easily diagnosed)

I have now started on migrating our OSD to xfs … (taking them out, making new filesystem on drive, putting them back into cluster again)

cheers
jc


-- 
SWITCH
Jens-Christian Fischer, Peta Solutions
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
phone +41 44 268 15 15, direct +41 44 268 15 71
jens-christian.fischer@xxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux