Greetings.
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
I looked at the specs for 5 on the "upstream" vendor's website, and they indicate that there is a 16TB limit on ext3.
Has anyone been able to create a ext3 filesystem larger than 8TB?
If ext3 isn't an option, has anyone used the kmod-xfs-smp.i686 module mentioned on the centos site? Surely it doesn't have an 8TB limit...
specs:
Centos 5.1 kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 3Ware 9550SXU 12port raid card
Am I just walking into a big nightmare?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Monty
On Fri, 2 May 2008 at 2:36pm, Monty Shinn wrote
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
I looked at the specs for 5 on the "upstream" vendor's website, and they indicate that there is a 16TB limit on ext3.
Has anyone been able to create a ext3 filesystem larger than 8TB?
Yes. 'mke2fs -F' forces it to make the FS, even though it thinks it's too big. "They" should have changed that when 16TB ext3 fs support moved from tech preview to production ready, but I think it got missed. Maybe in 5.2...
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:36:41PM -0500, Monty Shinn wrote:
Greetings.
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
I looked at the specs for 5 on the "upstream" vendor's website, and they indicate that there is a 16TB limit on ext3.
Has anyone been able to create a ext3 filesystem larger than 8TB?
If ext3 isn't an option, has anyone used the kmod-xfs-smp.i686 module mentioned on the centos site? Surely it doesn't have an 8TB limit...
specs:
Centos 5.1 kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 3Ware 9550SXU 12port raid card
Am I just walking into a big nightmare?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB. However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued troubleshooting we just used centosplus + jfs. Works perfectly for our 10TB filesystem.
Ray
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:36:41PM -0500, Monty Shinn wrote:
Greetings.
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
I looked at the specs for 5 on the "upstream" vendor's website, and they indicate that there is a 16TB limit on ext3.
Has anyone been able to create a ext3 filesystem larger than 8TB?
If ext3 isn't an option, has anyone used the kmod-xfs-smp.i686 module mentioned on the centos site? Surely it doesn't have an 8TB limit...
specs:
Centos 5.1 kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 3Ware 9550SXU 12port raid card
Am I just walking into a big nightmare?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB. However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued troubleshooting we just used centosplus + jfs. Works perfectly for our 10TB filesystem.
I'm curious what you store that you need 10TB of linear storage?
I have had 4-6-8TB storage systems, but the storage was always divvied up between different applications.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB. However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued troubleshooting we just used centosplus + jfs. Works perfectly for our 10TB filesystem.
I'm curious what you store that you need 10TB of linear storage?
I have had 4-6-8TB storage systems, but the storage was always divvied up between different applications.
-Ross
It's almost all Oracle database dump files... one database by itself is 4.5TB! Don't ask me what's in these things... :)
Ray
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB. However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued troubleshooting we just used centosplus + jfs. Works perfectly for our 10TB filesystem.
I'm curious what you store that you need 10TB of linear storage?
I have had 4-6-8TB storage systems, but the storage was always divvied up between different applications.
-Ross
It's almost all Oracle database dump files... one database by itself is 4.5TB! Don't ask me what's in these things... :)
Ah, should have figured it was for backup.
4.5TB, wow, sounds like financial forecasting or geographic survey data...
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:40:21PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:09:48PM -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB. However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued troubleshooting we just used centosplus + jfs. Works perfectly for our 10TB filesystem.
I'm curious what you store that you need 10TB of linear storage?
I have had 4-6-8TB storage systems, but the storage was always divvied up between different applications.
-Ross
It's almost all Oracle database dump files... one database by itself is 4.5TB! Don't ask me what's in these things... :)
Ah, should have figured it was for backup.
4.5TB, wow, sounds like financial forecasting or geographic survey data...
The latter I'm sure. I work at ESRI :)
Ray
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 02:36:41PM -0500, Monty Shinn wrote:
Greetings.
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
I looked at the specs for 5 on the "upstream" vendor's website, and they indicate that there is a 16TB limit on ext3.
Has anyone been able to create a ext3 filesystem larger than 8TB?
If ext3 isn't an option, has anyone used the kmod-xfs-smp.i686 module mentioned on the centos site? Surely it doesn't have an 8TB limit...
specs:
Centos 5.1 kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 3Ware 9550SXU 12port raid card
Am I just walking into a big nightmare?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I think it *theoretically* should work as ext3 should to 16TB. However, we ran into issues with userland tools and such. Possibly related to x86_64 vs i386 stuff, but in the end to avoid continued troubleshooting we just used centosplus + jfs. Works perfectly for our 10TB filesystem.
I'm curious what you store that you need 10TB of linear storage?
I have had 4-6-8TB storage systems, but the storage was always divvied up between different applications.
-Ross
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ross,
We basically store video image sequences (edited and source) and audio/video files on our servers. We are an editing and broadcast design facility, doing mostly HD work. The files are relatively large, and there are a lot of them.
I am trying to "max out" our current server population, moving from 250 and 500 gig drives to the Seagate 1TB enterprise (ES.2) SATA drives using the 12 port 3ware raid card.
I have at least 4 servers that I am wanting to upgrade this way.
They're just file servers running NFS and Samba.
Do I *need* a 10TB partition? No, not really. I could segment into 2 5TB partitions if needed, and I may still end up doing that. I am beginning to wonder if the >8TB ext3 limit has been vetted enough. It is just easier for the users if it was one partition.
I have to say when the mkfs.ext3 code hasn't been changed to allow >8TB partitions without adding the -F, (which did seem to work) it gives me pause.
Naively perhaps, I didn't think it would be an issue.
Thanks,
Monty
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Monty Shinn montys@videopost.com wrote:
We basically store video image sequences (edited and source) and audio/video files on our servers. We are an editing and broadcast design facility, doing mostly HD work. The files are relatively large, and there are a lot of them.
Having worked for a large film and television post-production facility in London for just over six years, XFS has been the primary filesystem for all our servers. Much of the data was split across multiple disk servers - each with around 2-3Tb of data. The whole filesystem was presented to the workstations over NFS with scripts to manage links to the different file servers - presenting a unified filesystem to the artist. XFS had given us the performance and reliability required and has gotten us out of some nasty scrapes.
It's a shame that RHEL/CentOS does not include XFS as a choice of filesystem out of the box without having to compile the XFS module or use CentOS Extras repository, but perhaps one day it may happen.. ;)
M.
Martyn Drake wrote:
Having worked for a large film and television post-production facility in London for just over six years, XFS has been the primary filesystem for all our servers. Much of the data was split across multiple disk servers - each with around 2-3Tb of data. The whole filesystem was presented to the workstations over NFS with scripts to manage links to the different file servers - presenting a unified filesystem to the artist. XFS had given us the performance and reliability required and has gotten us out of some nasty scrapes.
Well, XFS was designed exactly for the kind of scenario you're describing. No wonder it performs really well in that sort of situation.
Florin Andrei wrote:
Martyn Drake wrote:
Having worked for a large film and television post-production facility in London for just over six years, XFS has been the primary filesystem for all our servers. Much of the data was split across multiple disk servers - each with around 2-3Tb of data. The whole filesystem was presented to the workstations over NFS with scripts to manage links to the different file servers - presenting a unified filesystem to the artist. XFS had given us the performance and reliability required and has gotten us out of some nasty scrapes.
Well, XFS was designed exactly for the kind of scenario you're describing. No wonder it performs really well in that sort of situation.
Thanks to all for your help. I decided to go with XFS, since it could be loaded as a module and I have worked with it on SGI platforms for years.
Thanks again.
Monty
Monty Shinn wrote:
Ross,
We basically store video image sequences (edited and source) and audio/video files on our servers. We are an editing and broadcast design facility, doing mostly HD work. The files are relatively large, and there are a lot of them.
I am trying to "max out" our current server population, moving from 250 and 500 gig drives to the Seagate 1TB enterprise (ES.2) SATA drives using the 12 port 3ware raid card.
I have at least 4 servers that I am wanting to upgrade this way.
They're just file servers running NFS and Samba.
Do I *need* a 10TB partition? No, not really. I could segment into 2 5TB partitions if needed, and I may still end up doing that. I am beginning to wonder if the >8TB ext3 limit has been vetted enough. It is just easier for the users if it was one partition.
I have to say when the mkfs.ext3 code hasn't been changed to allow >8TB partitions without adding the -F, (which did seem to work) it gives me pause.
Naively perhaps, I didn't think it would be an issue.
Makes sense, does NFS support sharing such large volumes? I suppose that will depend on both the server version of NFS and the client, but it's something you need to keep in mind.
I think for a large file file system xfs is probably what you want, but you will want to run CentOS 64-bit with the 8k stacks to see it's full robustness and stability.
Some people think xfs is good everywhere, but that's simply not true, I always recommend putting the OS on ext3 and then choosing the file system for your application data that best suits the application. Basically you have ext3, jfs, xfs, gfs and ocfs, the last 2 being clustered file systems. ext3 is good because it is widely supported and performs well under mixed work load, jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server, xfs for large files and of course gfs or ocfs for clusters that need simultaneous file system access from multiple nodes (but they are slower due to locking overhead).
If you have volumes over 8TB then you really need to use either jfs or xfs depending on the application and if you are using xfs I highly recommend you run 64-bit for stability reasons.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
on 5-5-2008 11:41 AM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
And Hans Reiser's legal woes are deeper than ever.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/28/2243232&from=rss
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9930857-7.html
But here in California a man can spend most of his life in appeals.
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-5-2008 11:41 AM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
And Hans Reiser's legal woes are deeper than ever.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/28/2243232&from=rss
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9930857-7.html
But here in California a man can spend most of his life in appeals.
Even though the technology would still be around even if Hans isn't, there has been a lot of pain trying to get reiserfs to continue to work well in the kernel tree from release to release. It's very tempermental, so I don't know if it will last much longer, especially given the slew of existing file systems that don't need such work to maintain.
ext4 is being previewed in Fedora 9 this month, so add one more to the list.
I heard the Reiser FS is going to be replaced with the Peterson FS ;-)
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-5-2008 11:41 AM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
And Hans Reiser's legal woes are deeper than ever.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/28/2243232&from=rss
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9930857-7.html
But here in California a man can spend most of his life in appeals.
Even though the technology would still be around even if Hans isn't, there has been a lot of pain trying to get reiserfs to continue to work well in the kernel tree from release to release. It's very tempermental, so I don't know if it will last much longer, especially given the slew of existing file systems that don't need such work to maintain.
Well I wanted the facts about ReiserFS in the kernel and so I poked and googled some more and the part about the maintenance of reiserfs in the kernel was unfounded hearsay. The real reason it is being phased out in distributions (not the kernel tree) is the questions surrounding it's long term survival without Hans and Namesys to provide support for it.
ext4 is being previewed in Fedora 9 this month, so add one more to the list.
I heard the Reiser FS is going to be replaced with the Peterson FS ;-)
There is a punch line in there somewhere, but my mind just isn't that sharp today.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
ext4 is being previewed in Fedora 9 this month, so add one more to the list.
btrfs looks interesting too, though I expect it will be some time before it is stable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-5-2008 11:41 AM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
And Hans Reiser's legal woes are deeper than ever.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/28/2243232&from=rss
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9930857-7.html
But here in California a man can spend most of his life in appeals.
I finally read the news.com article and all I have to say is, what an idiot.
Just goes to show you that being intelligent doesn't necessarily make you smart.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
on 5-5-2008 2:31 PM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-5-2008 11:41 AM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
And Hans Reiser's legal woes are deeper than ever.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/28/2243232&from=rss
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9930857-7.html
But here in California a man can spend most of his life in appeals.
I finally read the news.com article and all I have to say is, what an idiot.
Just goes to show you that being intelligent doesn't necessarily make you smart.
-Ross
"It is better to keep quiet and be thought an idiot then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-5-2008 2:31 PM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-5-2008 11:41 AM Ross S. W. Walker spake the following:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Yeah, but reiserfs is all but dead these days. At least I wouldn't plan a long-term deployment around it...
And Hans Reiser's legal woes are deeper than ever.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/28/2243232&from=rss
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9930857-7.html
But here in California a man can spend most of his life in appeals.
I finally read the news.com article and all I have to say is, what an idiot.
Just goes to show you that being intelligent doesn't necessarily make you smart.
"It is better to keep quiet and be thought an idiot then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"
No doubt!
The worse part is I don't believe it was premeditated. I think she came over to drop off the kids and told him oh by the way I'm taking the children to live with me in Russia, at that point he went into a fit of anger and threw here against the pillar causing a fatal head injury.
If he had simply called the paramedics right away and told the truth then he would have received a minimum sentence with parole, but no he decided to try and hide what happened... Sad really, now he still loses the children and the best years of his life too.
Oh well, now that the thread has been taken far OT and turned into a soap.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
No doubt!
The worse part is I don't believe it was premeditated. I think she came over to drop off the kids and told him oh by the way I'm taking the children to live with me in Russia, at that point he went into a fit of anger and threw here against the pillar causing a fatal head injury.
I followed the trial blogs day by day on the SF Chronicle site. His wife was very close to gaining her US medical license (she had been a doctor in Russia), had lined up a good job, and various other indications of planning for a long term life here, nothing indicating any plans to leave for Russia.
on 5-5-2008 3:24 PM John R Pierce spake the following:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
No doubt!
The worse part is I don't believe it was premeditated. I think she came over to drop off the kids and told him oh by the way I'm taking the children to live with me in Russia, at that point he went into a fit of anger and threw here against the pillar causing a fatal head injury.
I followed the trial blogs day by day on the SF Chronicle site. His wife was very close to gaining her US medical license (she had been a doctor in Russia), had lined up a good job, and various other indications of planning for a long term life here, nothing indicating any plans to leave for Russia.
<rant>
The fact that he could be convicted with little to no real evidence, but someone like O.J. Simpson could be acquitted with what seemed like a smoking gun still in his hands just shows how money makes the law go away in the US.
</rant>
On Mon, May 05, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
jfs is supposedly excellent if you have a lot of small files like a mail/news server
Hm, last time I tested ReiseFS turned out to be the best FS for that situation. But it's been a while, perhaps things have changed a bit.
Best only if one ignores the reiserfs' tendency to trash data, particularly on abnormal shutdowns.
Bill
Monty Shinn wrote:
I am trying to create a 10TB (approx) ext3 filesystem. I am able to successfully create the partition using parted, but when I try to use mkfs.ext3, I get an error stating there is an 8TB limit for ext3 filesystems.
If ext3 isn't an option, has anyone used the kmod-xfs-smp.i686 module mentioned on the centos site? Surely it doesn't have an 8TB limit...
You'll have all sorts of troubles with Ext3 once you step deeper into the TB zone.
Just use XFS. That's what we did, works fine for us. And it's typically faster when the files are very large (especially delete is very fast).
No other filesystem will be as reliable as Ext3 if the machine suddenly loses power, but if you have a battery backup or something like that, you should be fine with non-Ext3 filesystems.
-
Bill Campbell -
Florin Andrei -
Jeremy Sanders -
John R Pierce -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Martyn Drake -
Monty Shinn -
Ray Van Dolson -
Ross S. W. Walker -
Scott Silva