On 08/04/2012 10:05 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I like tried and true over experimental.
Isn't XFS on linux tried and true by now? It's always worked great for me.
I suppose that depends on your definition. It has only JUST become supported on RHEL ...
Does ext4 resolve the issue of slow fsck? Recently I had a ~500GB ext3 filesystem that hadn't been checked in a while; it took over 20 minutes to fsck. Meanwhile, a few months ago I had a problematic ~10TB XFS filesystem, and it took about 1-2 hours to fsck (IIRC 1.5 hrs). This was also a reason I switched away from reiserfs (this was well before Hans Reiser's personal problems)--a reiserfsck of a relatively modest filesystem took much longer than even an ext3 fsck.
If I get some time I will try it on some spare filesystems, but I'm curious what other people's experiences are.
I've looked into ZFS on linux, but it still seems not quite ready for real production use. I'd love to test it on a less crucial server when I get the chance. Their FAQ claims RHEL 6.0 support:
My experience is that I normally do not have any issues with ext3 on EL5 or ext4 on EL6 ... problems being that I can not use the system because the IO is too slow, for example.
Other people might want to pick and prod and get the top 5 or 6% performance they can out of a machine ... I would rather use what is supported unless there is a reason that I can not do it in production.
That is why it's your machine ... you get to do whatever you want ... and keep all the pieces :D