On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 18:46 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 at 6:43pm, Jake wrote > > > I should say that I STRONGLY recommend not creating ext3 file systems in the > > 2TB+ range - fsck takes too long and you'd hate to get hit by one of those > > in what is supposed to be a "quick" reboot...and disabling them on the file > > system isn't a good idea either. > > On the other hand, nothing is as well supported on RHEL/CentOS as is ext3. > So if you're data is really important to you, think hard about using > another FS. Actually, on RHEL, the *only* filesystems that upstream *officially* supports are ext2/3 and GFS. Not XFS, nor reiser, nor JFS. Nada... Well, maybe FAT for USB-attached storage... ;) But if you're using CentOS, it's entirely up to you... If I were in RHEL-land (meaning: at a company willing to pony up for licenses), I'd consider a GFS2 cluster shared out via NFS. Or maybe an OCFS2 NFS cluster. If at a company using CentOS, I'd consider an OFCS2/NFS cluster or heartbeat/XFS/NFS. For home? XFS (or JFS if you like). But then, I'm willing (and capable) of supporting the mess I create. It all depends upon one's comfort level with getting out of a jam when one strays out of the "sweet spots" of available help... -I