> I get it. You want a pony, and you don't want to pay anything for it. Hi Dave, Not at all. I don't mind incurring a performance penalty in that LV. Ext3 performance is quite acceptable, with the exception of a single maintenance operation which I perform periodically (which can be quite slow, indeed, on the larger files. Very intensive random writes.) Fortunately, the filesystem intensive part of that operation occurs in its own work directory. The files in that directory are just temporary work files. And at the end of the processing, the resulting files get copied back to the main data directory tree. XFS performs extremely well for this operation. For about a dozen years, I've been using Ext3 for the whole thing, and the resiliency has been much more than just adequate. (If I needed more, I'd mount ext3 data=journal; I can't imagine mounting synchronously.) But for this new server, and probably future ones, I'll be using Ext3 for the permanent data, and XFS for the work directory. It makes a huge difference for that one operation, and leverages the strengths of both filesystems to yield something more appropriate for the workload than either one alone. As Ted is fond of noting, one of Linux's greatest strengths is the variety of filesystems it offers. And sometimes filesystem performance just doesn't matter. -Steve _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
