Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Bent Terp <bent at nagstrup.dk> wrote: >> Interesting, I thought that XFS was fairly safe for use. What would >> you recommend for filesystems in the 50-500 terabyte range? > > I would recommend you split it in several smaller (2-4TB) filesystems. > Most applications would support this, and with some clever tactics you > might overcome this in applications that do not support it directly. > > Disadvantages of using one huge filesystem (independent of filesystem type): > - If it breaks, you lose *ALL* your data. > - If you need to check the filesystem (fsck), it will take ages. > - You cannot easily scale horizontally by moving some of the data to a > second machine. > - It's much harder to tell what is causing performance problems. > > I never had any filesystem over 5TB in my life (and I've managed more > than 100TB at one site), and these days my "sanity" limit is around > 1TB per filesystem. > > I'm currently using XFS in production (we have some SuSE machines just > for the support of it), but I've had so many problems that would have > been avoided if we weren't using XFS, that I'm seriously considering > migrating them all to ext3. (Bonus points for getting rid of that SuSE > trash and replacing them with some shiny CentOS 5 machines.) Are these 64 bit machines? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com