Filesystem recommendations
in [Debian]
|
Prev: overcoming the 32k objects limit is ext3 - which file system to use?
Next: Why is Acroversion not properly updated?
From: Stan Hoeppner on 26 Apr 2010 06:00 Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM: > On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM: > > Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a > reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll. > > I think you are confusing what is with what should be. A'ight, you forced me to pull out the big gun. Choke on it. The master penguin himself, kernel.org, has run on XFS since 2008. Sorry for the body slam. Is your back ok Mark? ;) Pretty sure I just "won" this discussion. Err, actually, XFS wins. ;) BTW, the main Debian mirror in the U.S. is actually housed in kernel.org last I checked. Thus, the files on your system were very likely originally served from XFS. The Linux Kernel Archives "A bit more than a year ago (as of October 2008) kernel.org, in an ever increasing need to squeeze more performance out of it's machines, made the leap of migrating the primary mirror machines (mirrors.kernel.org) to XFS. We site a number of reasons including fscking 5.5T of disk is long and painful, we were hitting various cache issues, and we were seeking better performance out of our file system." "After initial tests looked positive we made the jump, and have been quite happy with the results. With an instant increase in performance and throughput, as well as the worst xfs_check we've ever seen taking 10 minutes, we were quite happy. Subsequently we've moved all primary mirroring file-systems to XFS, including www.kernel.org , and mirrors.kernel.org. With an average constant movement of about 400mbps around the world, and with peaks into the 3.1gbps range serving thousands of users simultaneously it's been a file system that has taken the brunt we can throw at it and held up spectacularly." http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Companies#The_Linux_Kernel_Archives -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BD562A7.3050907(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Mark Allums on 26 Apr 2010 06:50 On 4/26/2010 4:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM: >> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM: >> >> Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a >> reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll. >> >> I think you are confusing what is with what should be. > > A'ight, you forced me to pull out the big gun. Choke on it. I was trying to apologize. This is the user list. Of Debian. Not the SA list of IRIX. I am holding my opinion as a *user*. Other people come here, ask questions, I assume they are asking from the POV of a desktop user, unless they say otherwise. Sometimes I miss the introductions, or otherwise miss the point. Then I give bad advice. Hold silly opinions. From the POV of Joe Hobbyist, XFS is not suitable. From the POV of a Server Administrator, it might well be very suitable. YMMV. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BD56F4E.3090005(a)allums.com
From: Javier Barroso on 26 Apr 2010 08:00 On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com> wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM: >> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM: >> >> Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a >> reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll. >> >> I think you are confusing what is with what should be. > > A'ight, you forced me to pull out the big gun. Choke on it. The master > penguin himself, kernel.org, has run on XFS since 2008. Sorry for the body > slam. Is your back ok Mark? ;) Pretty sure I just "won" this discussion. > Err, actually, XFS wins. ;) BTW, the main Debian mirror in the U.S. is > actually housed in kernel.org last I checked. Thus, the files on your > system were very likely originally served from XFS. > > The Linux Kernel Archives > > "A bit more than a year ago (as of October 2008) kernel.org, in an ever > increasing need to squeeze more performance out of it's machines, made the > leap of migrating the primary mirror machines (mirrors.kernel.org) to XFS.. > We site a number of reasons including fscking 5.5T of disk is long and > painful, we were hitting various cache issues, and we were seeking better > performance out of our file system." > > "After initial tests looked positive we made the jump, and have been quite > happy with the results. With an instant increase in performance and > throughput, as well as the worst xfs_check we've ever seen taking 10 > minutes, we were quite happy. Subsequently we've moved all primary mirroring > file-systems to XFS, including www.kernel.org , and mirrors.kernel.org. With > an average constant movement of about 400mbps around the world, and with > peaks into the 3.1gbps range serving thousands of users simultaneously it's > been a file system that has taken the brunt we can throw at it and held up > spectacularly." > > http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Companies#The_Linux_Kernel_Archives Hello Stan, Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to defaults if it is possible Thanks for your explications ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/r2g81c921f31004260456z3c6f41ddg86e45cdae1257104(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Camaleón on 26 Apr 2010 09:20 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:56:21 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote: > Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if it > is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to defaults > if it is possible XFS (and ReiserFS) were having (still have?) problems with GRUB legacy bootloader so defaulting the filsesystem to any of them could be a bit "risky". I mean, not only "performance" is a key factor to determine a default filesystem :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.04.26.13.09.00(a)gmail.com
From: Stan Hoeppner on 26 Apr 2010 09:30
Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM: > Hello Stan, > > Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if > it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to > defaults if it is possible > > Thanks for your explications ! If one disk filesystem was better than all the others in all ways, then Linus would only allow one FS in the kernel tree. As of 2.6.33 there are no less than 7 stable primary disk filesystems offered in the kernel. Your question is a bit simplistic, and not really valid. There is no single "perfect" filesystem. IMO, for servers anyway, XFS is pretty close. Newbies _should_ always stick to defaults. Experts install with expert mode, and choose exactly what they want/need. I didn't write the Debian installer so I can't tell you why EXT is the default. I can only speculate. Thankfully the installer offers us expert mode so we can do whatever we want. In this regard, I guess the Debian team considers EXT the best choice for non-experts. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BD59505.30601(a)hardwarefreak.com |