<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">I've been using XFS so long that I forgot there was the "luxury" of being able to shrink other filesystems. :D<br>
<div><br>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-size:13px; font-family:Tahoma">--<br>
Allen Beddingfield <br>
Systems Engineer <br>
Office of Information Technology <br>
The University of Alabama<br>
Office 205-348-2251 <br>
allen@ua.edu <br>
<a tabindex="0" href="https://www.ua.edu/" target="" style="color:rgb(153,0,0)"></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF505081"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> ale-bounces@ale.org [ale-bounces@ale.org] on behalf of Jim Kinney [jkinney@jimkinney.us]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ale] ISCSI array on virtual machine<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>If you need de-dup, ZFS is the only choice and be ready to throw a lot of RAM into the server so it can do it's job. I was looking at dedupe on 80TB and the RAM hit was 250GB.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>XFS vs EXT4.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>XFS is the better choice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>XFS does everything EXT4 does except shrink. It was designed for (then very) large files (video) and works quite well with smaller files. It's as fast as EXT4 but will handle larger files and many, many more of them. I want to say exabytes but not certain.
Petabytes are OK filesystem sizes with XFS right now. I have no experience with a filesystem of that size but I expect there to be some level of metadata performance hit.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If there's the slightest chance of a need to shrink a partition (You _are_ using LVM, right?) then XFS will bite you and require relocation, tear down, rebuild, relocation. Not a fun process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A while back, an install onto a 24 TB RAID6 array refused to budge using EXT4. While EXT4 is supposed to address that kind of size, it had bugs and unimplemented plans for expansion features that were blockers. I used XFS instead and never looked back.
XFS has a very complete toolset for maintenance/repair needs. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 13:54 -0500, Todor Fassl wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>I need to setup a new file server on a virtual machine with an attached
ISCSI array. Two things I am obsessing over -- 1. Which file system to
use and 2. Partitioning scheme.
The ISCSI array is attached to a ubuntu 16.04 virtual machine. To tell
you the truth, I don't even know how that is done. I do not manage the
VMware cluster. In fact, I think the Dell technitian actually ddid that
for us. It looks like a normal 8T hard drive on /dev/sdb to the virtual
machine. The ISCSI array is configured for RAID6 so from what I
understand, all I have to do is choose a file system appropriate for my
end user's needs. Even though the array looks like a single hard drive,
I don't have to worry about software RAID or anyhthing like that.
Googling shows me no clear advantage to ext4, xfs, or zfs. I haven't
been able to find a page that says any one of those is an obvious choice
in my situation. I have about 150 end-users with nfs mounted home
directories. We also have a handful of people using Windows so the file
server will have samba installed. It's a pretty good mix of large files
and small files since different users are doing drastically different
things. There are users who never do anything but read email and browse
the web and others doing fluid dynamic simulations on small supercomputers.
Secondthing I've been going back and forth on in my own mind is whether
to do away with seperate partitions for faculty, staff, and grad
students. My co-worker says that's probably an artifact of the days when
partition sizes were limited. That was before my time here. The last 2
times we rebuilt our file server, we just maintained the partitioning
scheme and just made the sizes times larger. But sometimes the faculty
partition got filled up while there was still plenty of space left on
the grad partition. Or it might be the other way around. If we munged
them all together, that wouldn't happen. The only downside I see to
doing that is that if the faculty partition gets hosed, the grad
partition wouldn't be effected. But that seems like a pretty arbitrary
choice. We could just assign users randomly to one partition or another.
When you're setting up a NAS for use by a lot of users, is it considered
best practice to split it up to limit the damage from a messed up file
system? I mean, hopefully, that never happens anyway, right?
Right now, I've got it configured as one gigantic 8T ext4 partition. But
we won't be going live with it until the end of May so I have plenty of
time to completely rebuild it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>