1 |
On Thu September 22 2005 07:22 am, brettholcomb@×××××××××.net wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> For RAID I'm running RAID10 on an existing SCSI system - two RAID1 |
4 |
> combined to a RAID0 but I'm open to better things. |
5 |
|
6 |
I don't have any experience with RAID10, but I've read good things about it. |
7 |
|
8 |
> Filesystem of choice is XFS but what did you find? |
9 |
|
10 |
In my primitive tests, XFS showed good performance for really large files -- |
11 |
like raw video files in the gigabytes (as it was designed to do), but small |
12 |
and "normal" file size performance is what I needed more and it wasn't |
13 |
ideal. Earlier this year, I used XFS for several months on two servers and |
14 |
I liked it. However, through a bizarre series of power problems, I found |
15 |
parts of files wiped out with filler characters. That made me really |
16 |
nervous so I dropped it. |
17 |
|
18 |
I've had good stability with EXT3 in the past, but its performance wasn't |
19 |
something to cheer about. Despite the problems I had with Red Hat Linux |
20 |
support for ReiserFS a few years ago, I use it in most cases now. It has |
21 |
been stable for a while and does a great job for what I need; and of course |
22 |
I'm not using a Red Hat OS anymore. If you're happy with the performance, |
23 |
there's no need to change, but it wouldn't hurt to try some tests of your |
24 |
own while you're building a new server. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Ron |
28 |
-- |
29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |