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++. Kirk Bocek 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? >> > > > Kirk, > > 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. > Thanks > Michael >