Hello,
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Later on I'm planning to install a new system with xen, 3ware 9550SX-4LP and xfs. The xen domains are of course located on xfs partitions. Do these features come with the standard dvd or do I have to build a custom kernel for that?
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Thanks in advance Regards Michael
Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and you'll figure it out quickly.
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS will perform better than another.
XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and you'll figure it out quickly.
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS will perform better than another.
XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new installations as ``yum update'' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.
I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
Bill
Bill Campbell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and you'll figure it out quickly.
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS will perform better than another.
XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new installations as ``yum update'' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.
I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
You should be able to update the xfs modules ... they are in the repo (at least for 5.2 ... 5.1 is not going to get any updates any more and is moving to vault soon);
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Bill Campbell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and you'll figure it out quickly.
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS will perform better than another.
XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new installations as ``yum update'' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.
I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
You should be able to update the xfs modules ... they are in the repo (at least for 5.2 ... 5.1 is not going to get any updates any more and is moving to vault soon);
Let's see now, CentOS is supposed to be an Enterprise distribution (or at least a clone of one), but updates for something that's been out for about 6 months (5.1) won't be available? Is this because the ``upstream'' isn't providing updates?
Bill
Bill Campbell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Bill Campbell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Florin Andrei wrote:
Michael Kress wrote:
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and you'll figure it out quickly.
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS will perform better than another.
XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks.
While I have used xfs for years on SuSE systems, and have it on several CentOS 5.1 systems, I will probably not use it on new installations as ``yum update'' on the CentOS 5.1 systems now fails saying it cannot update kmod-xfs.
I prefer to keep things close to the LCD to avoid issues with extensions that may not be updated in a timely manner.
You should be able to update the xfs modules ... they are in the repo (at least for 5.2 ... 5.1 is not going to get any updates any more and is moving to vault soon);
Let's see now, CentOS is supposed to be an Enterprise distribution (or at least a clone of one), but updates for something that's been out for about 6 months (5.1) won't be available? Is this because the ``upstream'' isn't providing updates?
No, it is because 5.1 is not the distro .. centos-5 is.
5.0, 5.1, 5.2 are update sets for centos-5.
(much like service pack 2 or service pack 3 for WinXP to use a windows analogy)
You have CentOS-5, and it is updated to a certain level. If you run yum, it will be updated to latest version .. just like if you do an update with RHEL, you will get all the latest packages.
So ... CentOS-5 was at one time 5.0, then 5.1 and now 5.2.
This is covered a massive amount of times every update set.
Michael Kress wrote:
Hello,
I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd?
I do not know if the standard xfs modules in extras will work or not. You can boot the CD and try to install them.
Later on I'm planning to install a new system with xen, 3ware 9550SX-4LP and xfs. The xen domains are of course located on xfs partitions. Do these features come with the standard dvd or do I have to build a custom kernel for that?
There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you can install them for the main kernel.
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
XFS is not supported by Red Hat ... and it does not recover from loss of power very well. The only way I would recommend XFS is if your have tried to run it on ext3 and it will not work without the performance increase you can get with XFS. (All the performance in the world does not matter if you loose your partition on a loss of power).
Johnny Hughes wrote:
There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you can install them for the main kernel.
Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff. At least I know now that I can use standard means that are really updateable via 'yum update' and it's only a matter of a) enabling the repo centosplus, b) installing the kernel, c) rebooting and that's it. Cool.
No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?
Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).
XFS is not supported by Red Hat ... and it does not recover from loss of power very well. The only way I would recommend XFS is if your have tried to run it on ext3 and it will not work without the performance increase you can get with XFS. (All the performance in the world does not matter if you loose your partition on a loss of power).
Indeed, I already had some poweroffs and I think I can be lucky that my 3ware 9550SX-4LP has a cache battery. Knock-on-wood, there wasn't any severe catastrophe yet.
Another question: Can I also find 'quota' in the standard kernel? That would make the thing perfect. :)
Thanx for your answers Michael
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 04:32 +0200, Michael Kress wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you can install them for the main kernel.
Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff. At least I know now that I can use standard means that are really updateable via 'yum update' and it's only a matter of a) enabling the repo centosplus, b) installing the kernel, c) rebooting and that's it. Cool.
Don't forget to install yum-utils (if not already done) and set priorities for the repos you use. This will keep the additional repos components from overwriting base components.
No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?
All that I've read on the lists here indicates that the plus kernel is safe for production. IIRC, it just has some stuff configured in that is not configured by upstream.
<snip>
Another question: Can I also find 'quota' in the standard kernel? That would make the thing perfect. :)
Thanx for your answers Michael
Michael Kress wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you can install them for the main kernel.
Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff.
EXTRAS. CentOS EXTRAS for xfs. No need to enable centosplus for it.
No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?
Use CentOS extras *and* the "normal" kernel.
Cheers,
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
EXTRAS. CentOS EXTRAS for xfs. No need to enable centosplus for it.
Alright, sorry. I got that now.
No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?
Use CentOS extras *and* the "normal" kernel.
Hmmm, yummm, this even sounds better and easier maintainable (i.e. yum-updatable).
Thanks to everybody for your responses, they help me a lot. I made a detailled planning for my server migration and I ended up in 101 single tasks that would take me about 640 minutes for the whole sh*#. That migration will bind me over 10 hours to the monster. I think I'll add another task in front: Buy caffeine.
Regards Michael
on 7-30-2008 5:03 PM Michael Kress spake the following:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
EXTRAS. CentOS EXTRAS for xfs. No need to enable centosplus for it.
Alright, sorry. I got that now.
No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?
Use CentOS extras *and* the "normal" kernel.
Hmmm, yummm, this even sounds better and easier maintainable (i.e. yum-updatable).
Thanks to everybody for your responses, they help me a lot. I made a detailled planning for my server migration and I ended up in 101 single tasks that would take me about 640 minutes for the whole sh*#. That migration will bind me over 10 hours to the monster. I think I'll add another task in front: Buy caffeine.
Regards Michael
You could set the systems next to each other and script some of the long running tasks like data migration. With something like rsync you could sync data once for the long running main migration, and run it again to catch the changed bits later. I have a planned migration in the works right now for a mailserver. The data replicates hourly to keep the changeset small, and I can do the final migration in a few hours when I am ready.
-
Bill Campbell -
Florin Andrei -
Johnny Hughes -
Michael Kress -
Ralph Angenendt -
Scott Silva -
William L. Maltby