[CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.

Johnny Hughes johnny at centos.org
Tue Oct 23 10:07:20 UTC 2007


James A. Peltier wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> I know that XFS gets all the press about being a great performing file
>> system ... but if you want the best stability on CentOS, you should at
>> least consider ext3 instead.
>>
>> I have worked very hard to get stable code for xfs in centos-4 and
>> centos-5, and lots of people use it, but (IMHO) ext3 is still much more
>> stable with the CentOS Kernels.
>>
>> That is my $0.02 ... I'm sure other people will tell you I am all hosed
>> up :D
>>
> EXT3 performance is lacking in many areas and its support for larger
> file systems is still a problem.  However, it is rock solid and
> hopefully EXT4 will address the performance and file system limit issues.
> 

I don't disagree with that assessment, however newer versions of ext3
have switches to use to improve performance and they work on bigger file
systems.

Still, ext3 support is indeed lacking on larger filesystems and yes,
hopefully ext4 will address this.

But ... still, if spending a fortune on HUGE drives for an enterprise
file system I would still think that one should at least see if ext3
will meet their needs before automatically shifting to XFS.  I have seen
many a filesystem be unrecoverable with XFS, especially on 4K stack
systems (which CentOS i386 is).

Believe me, I have personally put a lot of time and effort into the xfs
filesystem modules that are in CentOS Plus and CentOS Extras ... and I
use them in some places, but I just want to be on record saying that
ext3 is more stable and I recommend its use unless it just
_WILL_NOT_WORK_, that's all :D

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20071023/4e8cee92/signature.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list