[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rhelv6-list] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?

I'm probably going to get massacred for proposing this, but there is native support for ZFS on linux (not fuse). 

I've tried it in small implementation on RHEL6 and Fedora 14.
www.zfsonlinux.org - sponsored by US Department of Energy and developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

ZFS does block level CRC and minimizes any chance of corruption. Block level dedup, snapshots, SSD for caching, etc.. if you had netapp appliances, this is as close as it gets in the free world.

If you can, do a bake off between the two. Crash them both while having high load and lots of data and see what happens.

-----Original Message-----
From: rhelv6-list-bounces redhat com [mailto:rhelv6-list-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Masopust, Christian
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:30 PM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv6-list] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?

> Götz Reinicke wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like 
> uncompressed
> > movies from student film projects, dvd images etc.
> > 
> > It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed 
> by more than
> > may be 5 people at the same time.
> > 
> > The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again 
> faced with the
> > question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which 
> mount options etc.
> > 
> > For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big
> > filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has 
> to search
> > e.g. on multiple volumes.
> > 
> > On the other hand, if one big filesystem crashes or has do 
> be checked it
> > will destroy a lot of data or the check will take hours ...
> > 
> > 
> > Any suggestions pro or cons are welcome! :-)
> > 
> > My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4
> > settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1)
> > 
> > Thanks and best regards. Götz
> If you decide to go with RHEL6, xfs is a good bet for making one big 
> filesystem.  We have a setup similar to what you're 
> describing and have 
> had very solid stability and performance using xfs (default 
> filesystem 
> and mount settings.)  As far as I can see (and knocking on 
> wood), xfs is 
> now a lot less flaky than it seemed to be in the past.
>   -Peter

I can approve what Peter mentioned. I've been using xfs on my
CentOS 5 system with 2 16TB arrays (each holding one single filesystem)
for several years with absolutely no issues!


rhelv6-list mailing list
rhelv6-list redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]