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!
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! > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >I can say if I have ext4 partitions on the production server, but my personal desktop is running ext4 partitions on secondary HDD on top of the RAID1 (system started back on 5.3 so primary HDD was not touched) and so far I have not seen any issues. Ljubomir
PJ writes:> 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! > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >I use it in production wih several TB on top of mdraid+lvm, no problems so far. Nice and fast; love the online resize feature. Go for it. -- Nux! www.nux.ro
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! > > I'm running some 50 servers with ext4 each server has 2x15TB ext4 partitions. > I haven't had an issue with that setup. The first server was setup 3 years ago. > It is quite faster then XFS in terms of write performance and thus far > reliable without any major problem. > > Keep in mind that user land tools are limited and the biggest partition you > can create with them at the moment is 16TB. You can recompile the tools and > remove this limitation if that is a problem for you. > > Regards, > Marian MarinovThanks for all the great replies everyone. I've got an 18TB partition - the limit is 16TB even in x86_64?
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!I'm running some 50 servers with ext4 each server has 2x15TB ext4 partitions. I haven't had an issue with that setup. The first server was setup 3 years ago. It is quite faster then XFS in terms of write performance and thus far reliable without any major problem. Keep in mind that user land tools are limited and the biggest partition you can create with them at the moment is 16TB. You can recompile the tools and remove this limitation if that is a problem for you. Regards, Marian Marinov -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110623/09be01da/attachment-0002.sig>
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:16 PM, 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!I've seen some interesting behavior from "df" on an ext4 file system just today, on a fully-patched CentOS 5.6 system. I was running "watch -d -n 1 df -b G" while copying several TB around. One second, "df" would report that 1600 GB were in use. The next, I'd be up to 2500 GB; and then, over 3000 GB. Then it would drop down to 1200 GB and start counting up again. The amount of disk space actually in use as reported by "du" was closer to 600 GB. I should mention, that is just a sample of the observed behavior. It seemed like "df" would start this fluctuation cycle at the correct number, and I would sometimes catch it there; but it would be off by a couple TB before it re-cycled. Is this something anyone else has seen? This was a new 10 TB file system formatted for ext4 directly, rather than formatted as ext3 and converted to ext4. I've also noticed that I seem to lose more disk space to general overhead than I did with ext3. I'm not talking about the space reserved for root - I've set "-m 0" in both cases. I mean that on an 8 GB logical volume, the formatted size would be 7.8 GB under ext3, versus 7.5 GB with ext4. A 16 GB file system in ext3 would be 15 GB in ext4. Does that match expectations? Thanks, James
On 6/23/2011 12:16 PM, 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) >Works fine here. I think you would have been jumping the gun if you were asking this in 2009, but by now it's well understood and the tools are fine in 2011. It's been around long enough. I use it anywhere that I have multi-gigabyte files that need to be handled with speed (deleting large files on ext3 is an exercise in patience) or where I have lots and lots of little files (which ext3 sometimes had trouble with).