On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:04:34PM -0700, PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov mm@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljerome@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov mm@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project requires ext3/ext4.
I'm always very cautious before jumping onto a new FS, (new in the sense it is officially supported now)
Thanks in advance!
<big snip>
Thanks Marian, it looks like it's 2 x 9TB partitions for me, what a pain in the ass!
Here be dragons:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
If you're running on large spindles, benchmark the performance during a rebuild of one drive. Yank a drive for a moment and watch performance fall off a cliff until the RAID is made whole.
Exercize the storage using dt and fsopbench. If it survives them intact you have little to fear.
dt: http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2005-872.html fsopbench: http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fsopbench/
BTW, how long does a restoring a 9TB partition from tape run? Is it longer than your SLA? I'd want to know the answer before putting it into production.