EVMS, LVM, LVM2, XFS, ext3 on FC3

[Matias Féliciano]

Le mardi 05 octobre 2004 à 09:38 -0700, David Kewley a écrit :
> I'm looking at building several multi-TB arrays in an academic research 
> environment.  So far I've been heading toward FC3 (or possibly RHEL4 when 
> it's released), EVMS, and XFS.
> 
> I've seen little or no mention of EVMS in the Fedora and RHEL communities, and 
> I'm wondering why that is.

Red Hat has acquired Sistina (developers of lvm2, ...) :
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2003/press_sistina.html

>   From reading websites & mailing list archives, it 
> seems to me like EVMS is more mature than LVM2, and more fully-featured than 
> either LVM or LVM2.  I've not actually used any of the three yet.
> 
> Today I'm patching the FC3t2 kernel (541) with the patches (mostly DM patches) 
> recommended on the EVMS website http://evms.sourceforge.net/install/, and 
> it's going quite smoothly.  So far only the first patchfile in the udm1 
> patchset didn't apply, because it's already applied in FC3t2 kernel 541.  A 
> similar patching attempt yesterday on FC1 was miserable (I expect no one will 
> be surprised at that :).
> 
> Is there a good reason to use LVM or LVM2 rather than EVMS?  Is there a reason 
> EVMS isn't included in FC?
> 
> On to filesystems.  I saw some commentary by Arjan on the RHEL4 beta list 
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/nahant-beta-list suggesting that there 
> is no good, known reason to use XFS in RHEL4 (and presumably FC3?), because 
> ext3 has been patched to provide significantly better performance, and online 
> resize of ext3 is being actively worked on.  Indeed those are the two obvious 
> issues that I care about, so I'm considering going with ext3 rather than XFS.
> 
> Can anyone think of a reason to use XFS over ext3, even with the improvements 
> that Arjan mentioned?  Maybe XFS scales better still, or provides a 
> significant advantage in filesystem size on 64-bit architectures, compared to 
> ext3?
> 
> David
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20041005/e2040401/attachment.sig>