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); -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080729/6aef4876/attachment-0003.sig>