From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o9O0GcRc076777 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:16:39 -0500 Received: from omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1EB704EC355 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (omr3.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.53]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JVfMzYooDga8TXMJ for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr9 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o9O0HsQ8021474 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:17:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC37B2D.3050005@chaven.com> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:17:49 -0500 From: Steve Costaras MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Best filesystems ? References: <4CBE2403.8070108@hardwarefreak.com> <20101019234217.GD12506@dastard> <19646.55189.843933.481529@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk> <20101021020009.GG12506@dastard> <19648.27859.799400.168394@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk> <19651.9652.631329.903552@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <19651.9652.631329.903552@tree.ty.sabi.co.uk> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 2010-10-23 13:13, Peter Grandi wrote: > > * JFS is good for almost everything, including largish filesystems > on somewhat largish systems with lots of processes accessing > lots of files, and works equally well on 32b and 64b, is very > stable, and has a couple of nice features. Its major downside is > less care than XFS for barriers. I think that it can support > well filesystems up to 10-15TB, and perhaps beyond. It should > have been made the default for Linux for at least a decade > instead of 'ext3'. Would comment here that JFS is indeed very good, but does have a problem when reaching/hitting the 32TB boundary. This appears to be a user space tool issue. It is the main reason why I switched over to XFS as was running into this problem too often. > * XFS is like JFS, and with somewhat higher scalability both as to > sizes and as to higher internal parallelism in the of multiple > processes accessing the same file, and has a couple of nice > features (mostly barrier support, but also small blocks and large > inodes). Its major limitation are internal complexity and should > only be used on 64b systems. It can support single filesystems > larger than 10-15TB, but that's stretching things. Have used XFS up to 120TB myself on real media (i.e. not sparse files) under linux; will be building >128 shortly. Have used more w/ XFS Irix in the past. Generally I find with most file systems/tools there are many bugs when you cross bit boundaries where they were not tested. Whenever using/planning large systems /always/ test first and have good backups. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs