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. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University