On Sunday 11 September 2005 01:26, Francois Caen wrote: > On 9/10/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote: > > I don't have a list because I personally never make an Ext3 filesystem > > greater than 1TB, period. And I try to keep them below 100GBs if I can > > help it. > > Why? > Perfomance? Stability??? ext2 and therefore ext3 was designed with a few GB disks in mind... XFS and JFS were both designed with multi TB disks in mind... Therefore it _should_ work better if you use one of those more modern fs... There are benchmarks and all for that - i.e. the performance of reiserfs has been disected over and over again when it comes to handling small files. Anyway, when running oracle on a cooked space I've not yet seen performance differences. If you just have a huge mirror (i.e. all the linux distributions and more) I have not noticed performance either... Sure, there are places where xfs and the like will work better but I haven't seen an environment like that yet. All that said, I too would recommend going with Reiser or XFS. I once had a ext3 filesystem that had one damaged sector in the journal... of course it fell back to ext2 behavior and the fs check took all weekend :-) XFS will handle a defective journal much better - so the chance that you ever encounter a situation where you have to do a full fs check is much lower. Peter.