1 |
Summing it up, IMHO. |
2 |
|
3 |
- NTFS is not a choice, really, you wanna stay in linux land. Besides, you |
4 |
would have to find some tool|workaround for defragmenting it :/ |
5 |
- reiserfs is not that manageable: as others said, it does not allow |
6 |
recovery from filesystem damage (let alone from hd failure). Reiserfs4 |
7 |
promised a breakthru, but right now is not ready to be used. |
8 |
- ext3 has got decent performance for general purpose servers as well as |
9 |
desktop boxes, and you can find lot of recovery tools (even some win32 |
10 |
ones), so this is my main choice |
11 |
- go XFS on "big" servers with all the standard redundant hw equipment, but |
12 |
only if you foresee heavy filesystem workload |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
Besides, RAID 5 is not always a good choice: I got 2 adaptec and 3ware cards |
17 |
that got them bioses/nvram messed up thanks to power spikes during the big |
18 |
italian blackout back in 2003. And yes, they were behind online APC ups |
19 |
Mic |
20 |
|
21 |
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:23 PM, RijilV <rijilv@×××××.com> wrote: |
22 |
|
23 |
> 2008/5/24 A. Khattri <ajai@××××.net>: |
24 |
> > Technical arguments aside, if you're serious about data loss and/or |
25 |
> > performance, you would be using hardware RAID anyway. 3ware cards are |
26 |
> pretty |
27 |
> > cheap and the extra money is well worth it for peace of mind. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> |
30 |
> +1 for 3ware. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Also, the initial problem with this thread is that there were no |
33 |
> requirements listed. What's the best file system largely depends on |
34 |
> what you're doing. If its a IMAP server VS an Oracle database, you'd |
35 |
> pick two entirely different filesystems. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Asking a what the best filesystem is without any qualifications or |
38 |
> requirements doesn't give you a very good answer, more likely you're |
39 |
> going to get which filesystem has the most fans. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> .r' |
42 |
> -- |
43 |
> gentoo-server@l.g.o mailing list |
44 |
> |
45 |
> |