[CentOS] Calling All FS Fanatics
t004 at kbocek.com
Sun Oct 8 20:14:24 UTC 2006
I'm going to leave the OS volumes (/, /boot, /var, etc) as ext3. This should
reduce the chances of creating a non-bootable system. I'm going to take a leap
of faith and use XFS on my 'data' volumes. I'm sure I can make use of the
200MB/Sec writes I've benchmarked with bonnie++.
Michael Kress wrote:
> Kirk Bocek wrote:
>> Nathan Grennan wrote:
>>> XFS, fast, but can fail under load, does XORs of data, so a bad write,
>>> as in power failure, can mean garbage in a file. It is meta-data only
>>> journaling. Also slow on deletes.
>> You and several others point to a greater chance for data corruption.
>> However, this host will be on a UPS. The system will be safely shut down
>> before the power goes off. Isn't that enough protection?
> how did you decide about the xfs question?
> I almost have the same setup as you do (9550SXU-LP, dual xeon on a
> Supermicro X6DH8-G2+, 4SATA-II hds attached, raid5) and I'm following
> the discussion, but as it grew quite big, I must have lost the trail to
> your decision. :)
> I made my bonnie++ tests with xfs under xen and I'm not quite content
> (still searching for the speed gain to include into the xen enabled
> kernel). To express it briefly, xen kernel has worse performance than
> the centos-kernel. Anyways, xfs is a whole lotta faster than ext3.
> What worries me a little bit is peoples' fear about xfs being unsafe
> under high load. That's why I'd like to hear something about your decision.
More information about the CentOS