[ale] XFS on Linux - Is it ready for prime time?

[Lightner, Jeff]

In the press release for RHEL6 they note ext4 is going to be the default
but they'll also allow you to choose xfs.  

 

Google in January chose ext4 over xfs but they stated that was mainly
because they were upgrading from ext2 and going to ext4 was simple.

 

________________________________

From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Hubbs
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:33 AM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
Subject: Re: [ale] XFS on Linux - Is it ready for prime time?

 

I've been using ext4 on both the "big/slow" SATA array and the
"small/fast" SAS array in the file server I run at work for the better
part of a year now.  I performed unspeakable tortures on it before I put
the system into production but even the automated disk-to-disk backup
that takes place every night (especially the first-of-the-month one that
makes a >400GiB squashfs image) as well as the occasional ClamAV scans
and searches definitely load things up.  To date the only problem that I
have had with the server at all was probably attributable to either
Samba or a stray bit flip affecting Samba, not ext4, and it was cured
with a Samba restart.  In fact, I had occasion to bring the eight-drive
RAID1+0 SATA array down recently after 208 days of continuous uptime and
gave it a fscking before mounting it, and it was fine.  That being said,
I'm not seeing a downside to ext4, at least not yet.  Granted, perhaps
there are applications where XFS, JFS, etc. would work so much better
that it would be worth occasional strangenesses, but a big file server
for mostly WinTel desktop/laptop clients isn't one of them.  

On 4/22/10 7:59 AM, Warren Myers wrote: 

According to Red Hat's press release yesterday, I'd say if you had had
any concerns, they should be gone now :
http://press.redhat.com/2010/04/21/red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-beta-avail
able-today-for-public-download/

XFS ad EXT4 coming with RHEL6 by default.

WMM

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 21:34, Doug McNash <dmcnash at charter.net> wrote:


I'm consulting at a company that wants to turn their Linux based NAS in
to a reliable product.  They initially chose XFS because they were under
the impression that it was high performance but what they got was
something of questionable reliability. I have identified and patched
several serious bugs (2.6.29) and I have a feeling there are more
unidentified ones out there. Furthermore, xfs_check craps out of memory
every time so we have to do an xfs_repair at boot and it takes forever.
But today we got into a situation where xfs_repair can't repair the disk
(a raid5 array btw).

Does anyone out there use xfs? How about a suggestion for a stable
replacement.
--
doug mcnash
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo




-- 
Warren Myers
http://warrenmyers.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/warrenmyers



 
 
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
 
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
 
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20100422/e237d477/attachment-0001.html