On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +0000, Ian Malone wrote: >>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not >>> sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's >>> that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting >>> new filesystems onto ext4 and in the past month we moved probably our >>> largest remaining dataset (1.1TB) from XFS to ext4, the main reason >>> has been flexibility with resizing. Particularly the XFS 32bit inode >>> ceiling, (inode64 not working well with NFS). > >> As far as I know inode64 is not really a problem on NFS anymore, which >> is why I did not raise this as an issue at all (I use NFS and I have a >> 6TB XFS filesystem with inode64). >> > > Unless you have legacy systems that must talk to it. Can we get some definition of "legacy" here? kernel/nfs-utils versions? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
