On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 at 10:34pm, Bryan J. Smith wrote
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 21:01 -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
Having hit a similar issue (big FS, I wanted XFS, but needed to run centos 4), I just went ahead and stuck with ext3. My FS is 5.5TiB -- a software RAID0 across 2 3w-9xxx arrays. I had no issues formatting it and have had no issues in testing or production with it. So, it can be done.
I don't think I _ever_ said it couldn't be done. In fact, the Ext3 support is now up to 17.6TB (16TiB) now.
And I never said that you said that, nor did I mean to imply it.
But is there any guarantee that volume will work if moved to another set of hardware, kernels, etc...??? As I said, I _never_ create Ext3
As I just mentioned in another post, this configuration is explicitly supported by Red Hat. Therefore, if it doesn't work in some other configuration, it's a bug that Red Hat will want to fix.
P.S. Red Hat's going to wake up sooner or later and realize it's just as Sun said, they have not addressed the enterprise filesystem issue. I'm sure SGI and the XFS team would be more than happy to see some engagement from Red Hat on this matter -- and have wished for years now -- and the said thing is that it would _help_ Red Hat's future. XFS is the only option -- ReiserFS and JFS have interface/compatibility issues that are "show stoppers" for Red Hat. XFS has not, and the only issues are newer kernel/distribution developments that just need to be addressed at a distro-level.
I too have been waiting for a long while for Red Hat to wake up to XFS. My *other* 5.5TB of RAID space (spread over 4 servers) is all XFS on RH7.3. But this volume needed large block device support (obviously), and I couldn't get consistent results wedging XFS into centos-4, so I went with the supported configuration. I'm not willing to go to SuSE just to get XFS.