On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:50:58PM -0500, John Mark Walker wrote: > True. Also, note that XFS is the recommended disk FS, although Ext3/4 are > certainly still supported and will continue to be so. Are the reasons listed somewhere? It used to be the opposite. From http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Gluster_3.1:_Checking_GlusterFS_Minimum_Requirements: File System Requirements Gluster recommends Ext4 (for Linux kernel 2.6.31 or higher) and Ext3 (for all earlier versions) when formatting the disk sub-subsystem. Any other POSIX compliant disk file system such as XFS or ZFS may also work, but has not been tested widely. The 3.2 doc has modified that somewhat (http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Gluster_3.2:_Checking_GlusterFS_Minimum_Requirements): File System Requirements Gluster recommends Ext4 (for Linux kernel 2.6.31 or higher) and Ext3 (for all earlier versions) when formating the disk sub-subsystem. For workloads involving huge files, Gluster recommends XFS file system. Any other POSIX compliant disk file system, such as ZFS may also work, but has not been tested widely. So is the preference now that even for workloads _not_ involving huge files, XFS is better? For non-huge-file systems is Ext4 more likely to break, or suffer in performance speed? Whit
