On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:04:34PM -0700, PJ wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov <mm at yuhu.biz> wrote: > > On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ <pauljerome at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov <mm at yuhu.biz> wrote: > >> >> On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote: > >> >>> I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be > >> >>> re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before > >> >>> starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4. > >> >>> > >> >>> I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project > >> >>> requires ext3/ext4. > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm always very cautious before jumping onto a new FS, (new in the > >> >>> sense it is officially supported now) > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks in advance! <big snip> > Thanks Marian, it looks like it's 2 x 9TB partitions for me, what a > pain in the ass! Here be dragons: If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much less prone to unrecoverable data loss. If you're running on large spindles, benchmark the performance during a rebuild of one drive. Yank a drive for a moment and watch performance fall off a cliff until the RAID is made whole. Exercize the storage using dt and fsopbench. If it survives them intact you have little to fear. dt: http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2005-872.html fsopbench: http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fsopbench/ BTW, how long does a restoring a 9TB partition from tape run? Is it longer than your SLA? I'd want to know the answer before putting it into production. -- Charles Polisher