Francois Barre <francois.barre@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
G'day Francois.
> Well, I think everything is in the subject... I am looking at this
> solution for a 6*250GB raid5 data server, evolving in a 12*250 rai5 in
> the months to come... Performance is absolutely not a big issue for
> me, but I would not appreciate any data loss.
If your key interest is data integrity, and you don't care a fig about
performance, you would be much better off using ext3 on that filesystem.
Depending on the test, ext3 may not do better than other filesystems,
but it is really quite hard to go past the long history of reliability
and stability that it has.
It also has extremely good tools for recovering if something /does/ go
wrong, and is very resilient to damage on the disk. Reiserfs has,
historically, had some issues in those areas, especially in recovery
from corruption.
> Furthermore, I would prefer not to use LVM nor any middle layer
> between MD and the fs... Is this middle layer *very* usefull when I'm
> sure my partitions layout will not evolve (e.g. only one enormous fs)
Nope, pretty much no advantage at all, if you are just planning on using
this to store volume data.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
