Hello, I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems with the live cd would be a cruical feature. So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is included in the 5.2 live cd? Later on I'm planning to install a new system with xen, 3ware 9550SX-4LP and xfs. The xen domains are of course located on xfs partitions. Do these features come with the standard dvd or do I have to build a custom kernel for that? Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little). Thanks in advance Regards Michael -- Michael Kress, kress at hal.saar.de http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L
Michael Kress wrote:> > I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems > with the live cd would be a cruical feature. > So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is > included in the 5.2 live cd?Well, try "yum install" with the "xfs" string and various wildcards and you'll figure it out quickly.> Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it > still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have > better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with > moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).Performance is not "one", it's "many". There are so many different scenarios and in most cases it's impossible to tell whether any given FS will perform better than another. XFS will likely perform better than other FS when you're dealing with large files, such as HD authoring and stuff like that. Even then, if you want to be sure, it's probably best to do some benchmarks. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
Michael Kress wrote:> Hello, > > I'm planning a server migration and being able to mount xfs file systems > with the live cd would be a cruical feature. > So before I download and try ... can anyone tell me whether the xfs is > included in the 5.2 live cd? >I do not know if the standard xfs modules in extras will work or not. You can boot the CD and try to install them.> Later on I'm planning to install a new system with xen, 3ware 9550SX-4LP > and xfs. The xen domains are of course located on xfs partitions. > Do these features come with the standard dvd or do I have to build a > custom kernel for that? >There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you can install them for the main kernel.> Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it > still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have > better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server with > moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little).XFS is not supported by Red Hat ... and it does not recover from loss of power very well. The only way I would recommend XFS is if your have tried to run it on ext3 and it will not work without the performance increase you can get with XFS. (All the performance in the world does not matter if you loose your partition on a loss of power). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080729/4ddc1996/attachment-0001.sig>
Johnny Hughes wrote:> > There are xfs modules and tools for centos in centos-extras ... so you > can install them for the main kernel.Ah, that's right, it's the centosplus repo that contains that stuff. At least I know now that I can use standard means that are really updateable via 'yum update' and it's only a matter of a) enabling the repo centosplus, b) installing the kernel, c) rebooting and that's it. Cool. No objections to using the centosplus kernel in production environments?> >> Under centos-4.5 I chose xfs for performance reasons. With 5.2, is it >> still the fs of choice when it comes to performance or do you have >> better recommendations? (It will be a combined web and mail server >> with moderate traffic, i.e. not toooo much but not tooo little). > > XFS is not supported by Red Hat ... and it does not recover from loss > of power very well. The only way I would recommend XFS is if your > have tried to run it on ext3 and it will not work without the > performance increase you can get with XFS. (All the performance in > the world does not matter if you loose your partition on a loss of > power). > >Indeed, I already had some poweroffs and I think I can be lucky that my 3ware 9550SX-4LP has a cache battery. Knock-on-wood, there wasn't any severe catastrophe yet. Another question: Can I also find 'quota' in the standard kernel? That would make the thing perfect. :) Thanx for your answers Michael -- Michael Kress, kress at hal.saar.de http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L
Brent L. Bates wrote:> As far as I'm concerned, XFS is the ONLY file system to use, period. If > you care about not only performance, but also reliability, use XFS.I can confirm this, I had quite a few power line cuts and xfs always had mercy upon me.> XFS > compiled into kernel support isn't needed any more since 4.x. It is now in > modules. On the Scientific Linux group, the person doing the 4.x Live CD/DVD > added XFS support at one point, after I asked him about it. I do not know if > he has made that standard now or not.So can I consider the xfs module implementation as being well tested and stable?> Red Hat strips out XFS support from > everything they do, so that makes things harder to do. I guess they do not > like competition from SGI and do their best to discourage XFS use. Some > Scientific Linux and CentOS people try to put it back in to some extent. I've > had to create my own DVD's with full XFS support, including fresh full > installs of only XFS file systems. Also included XFS support in rescue mode. > I did that for 4.x. I didn't do it completely right and I haven't had a > chance to try it again for 5.x. I really need to do that, but just never have > the time to get it done. I wish someone else with more experience doing these > things would do it. > >Greetings Michael -- Michael Kress, kress at hal.saar.de http://www.michael-kress.de / http://kress.net P E N G U I N S A R E C O O L