Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
- kernel from centosplus - kmod-xfs from centosplus - kmod-xfs from extras
Bernhard
On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:57:49 -0400 "BLB" == Brent L Bates blbates@vigyan.com wrote:
BLB> I strongly recommend XFS over ext[23] ANY day. XFS is BLB> faster, more robust, and more dependable than ext. I've used BLB> it for years and it is rock solid. I've had it work through BLB> failing disk drives and number system crashes (caused by BLB> faulty memory). It takes a licking and keeps on ticking. BLB> :-) No need to `fsck' the drive. If there are any file BLB> system problems, one can run xfs_check with a live system. BLB> It isn't recommended as it can give false positives for a BLB> live running file system, but it can help if needed. BLB> xfs_repair has to be run on an unmounted file system, BLB> however, I've almost never needed to use xfs_check or BLB> xfs_repair. XFS has over a decade and pentabytes of use BLB> behind it. I wouldn't use any other file system.
BLB> --
BLB> Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.) M.S. 912 Phone:(757) BLB> 865-1400, x204 NASA Langley Research Center FAX:(757) BLB> 865-8177 Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Email: BLB> B.L.BATES@larc.nasa.gov http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/
Hi,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:23, Bernhard Gschaider bgschaid_lists@ice-sf.at wrote:
which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
- kernel from centosplus - kmod-xfs from centosplus - kmod-xfs from extras
Use kmod-xfs from extras (it should be already enabled in your yum config) unless you already need the centosplus kernel for another reason.
See here: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CentOSPlus#line-76
HTH, Filipe
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Filipe Brandenburger filbranden@gmail.com wrote:
Use kmod-xfs from extras (it should be already enabled in your yum config) unless you already need the centosplus kernel for another reason.
See here: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CentOSPlus#line-76
That wiki article needs to be updated. The centosplus kernel does not have xfs enabled any more. Therefore, cplus kernel users also need to install kmod-xfs (which is available from the centosplus repo).
If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod.
Akemi
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod.
I have just pushed the latest .22 kernel... for extras.
I completely missed the .17 kernel.
Tru
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tru Huynh tru@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod.
I have just pushed the latest .22 kernel... for extras.
The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well.
Akemi
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tru Huynh tru@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod.
I have just pushed the latest .22 kernel... for extras.
The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well.
grr, I keep forgetting that one :( Thanks for the reminder :)
The CentOS-4 centosplus kmod-xfs are being pushed now to the mirrors.
Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel (regular and centosplus). I am not sure if the rebuild was really required.
Nevertheless they are available at: ttp://people.centos.org/tru/kABI/
The previous kernel version independent kmod for xfs (built for the .13 version) are still on the testing repo.
We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? to their final repositories. Does that sound good?
Cheers,
Tru
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh tru@centos.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well.
Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel (regular and centosplus). I am not sure if the rebuild was really required.
Nevertheless they are available at: ttp://people.centos.org/tru/kABI/
The previous kernel version independent kmod for xfs (built for the .13 version) are still on the testing repo.
We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? to their final repositories. Does that sound good?
Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required Requires. I will upload the current version to my place and let you grab it.
Akemi
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh tru@centos.org wrote:
We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? to their final repositories. Does that sound good?
Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required Requires. I will upload the current version to my place and let you grab it.
Here is the updated version:
http://centos.toracat.org/kmods/CentOS-4/xfs/SRPMS/
Please discard the obsoleted ones (I did not bump the version/release number). Let me know when your binaries are ready for testing.
Akemi
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:16:42AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Here is the updated version:
http://centos.toracat.org/kmods/CentOS-4/xfs/SRPMS/
Please discard the obsoleted ones (I did not bump the version/release number). Let me know when your binaries are ready for testing.
rebuilds and uploaded.
C4 testing files removed.
Thanks,
Tru
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh tru@centos.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well.
Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel (regular and centosplus). I am not sure if the rebuild was really required.
Nevertheless they are available at: ttp://people.centos.org/tru/kABI/
The previous kernel version independent kmod for xfs (built for the .13 version) are still on the testing repo.
We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? to their final repositories. Does that sound good?
Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required Requires. I will upload the current version to my place and let you grab it.
Akemi
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
-- Pasi
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
Probably not a default, but an option.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
Probably not a default, but an option.
I wonder which high-end customer *finally* drove them to do this (if, indeed, they are going to). Us regular folks have been agitating for this for ages, but we were always told that ext3 was just fine and why would we need anything else. Somebody with $$ must have told them in no uncertain terms "XFS or we're outta' here".
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
Probably not a default, but an option.
Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks were a problem.
on 5-14-2009 2:21 PM Les Mikesell spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
Probably not a default, but an option.
Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks were a problem.
I'm sure that RedHat can easily build 32 bit kernels with 8k stacks if they so choose.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:21, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks were a problem.
Oh yeah, I failed to mention in my previous e-mail that all the machines I have running XFS are using x86_64 versions of CentOS.
I don't know if the 4k stack on 32-bit machines is still an issue.
In any case, nowadays I would recommend x86_64 for servers anyway, even if they have only 2GB of RAM. It works much better than PAE, etc., for 4GB RAM or more, and even if you still have less than 4GB RAM installing x86_64 will make it much easier when you want to upgrade.
Filipe
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:03:32PM -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi ??? spake the following:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates):
It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
Probably not a default, but an option.
Yes, of course it won't be the default filesystem :) I meant it will be included in the normal kernel, and it doesn't have to be built as external/extras module.
-- Pasi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Bernhard Gschaider -
Filipe Brandenburger -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Les Mikesell -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
Scott Silva -
Tru Huynh