> Hi, > Sorry if this is a stupid question (bit of a newbie). I'm building a Samba > fileserver on a box with a hardware raid array of about 65GB which I'm > hoping to share out to the local LAN . I was wondering if the filesystem > used (ext2,ext3, reiserfs etc) on the partition where the Samba shares > will reside makes much of a difference? I'd obviously like to use a > journalling filesystem but can't seem to find any info to guide my choice. > > Thanks > Donal
ext3 is probably the best choice. Donal Byrne wrote:> > > Hi, > > Sorry if this is a stupid question (bit of a newbie). I'm building a Samba > > fileserver on a box with a hardware raid array of about 65GB which I'm > > hoping to share out to the local LAN . I was wondering if the filesystem > > used (ext2,ext3, reiserfs etc) on the partition where the Samba shares > > will reside makes much of a difference? I'd obviously like to use a > > journalling filesystem but can't seem to find any info to guide my choice. > > > > Thanks > > Donal > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
I've been thinking on this subject before, I'm setting up a 2 TB storage server and I would like some advice on how would be the best way to setup the disks (it's a 12*200GB array, single logical unit RAID5). Not that I don't trust ext3, but some feedback would help. This is sort of untopic, so please don't reply to the list. Regards, Omar -----Original Message----- From: Yura Pismerov [mailto:ypismerov@tucows.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:53 PM To: Donal Byrne Cc: 'samba@lists.samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] Filesystem for Samba server ext3 is probably the best choice. Donal Byrne wrote:> > > Hi, > > Sorry if this is a stupid question (bit of a newbie). I'm building a Samba > > fileserver on a box with a hardware raid array of about 65GB which I'm > > hoping to share out to the local LAN . I was wondering if the filesystem > > used (ext2,ext3, reiserfs etc) on the partition where the Samba shares > > will reside makes much of a difference? I'd obviously like to use a > > journalling filesystem but can't seem to find any info to guide my choice. > > > > Thanks > > Donal > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Thanks Yura, bust any reason why ext3 would be better? -----Original Message----- From: Yura Pismerov [mailto:ypismerov@tucows.com] Sent: 08 October 2002 22:53 To: Donal Byrne Cc: 'samba@lists.samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] Filesystem for Samba server ext3 is probably the best choice. Donal Byrne wrote:> > > Hi, > > Sorry if this is a stupid question (bit of a newbie). I'm building aSamba> > fileserver on a box with a hardware raid array of about 65GB which I'm > > hoping to share out to the local LAN . I was wondering if the filesystem > > used (ext2,ext3, reiserfs etc) on the partition where the Samba shares > > will reside makes much of a difference? I'd obviously like to use a > > journalling filesystem but can't seem to find any info to guide mychoice.> > > > Thanks > > Donal > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Actually I tested my RAID card with 2x6, 3x4 and 1x12 configurations, the 1x12 was the fastest one (of course this is not an SCSI RAID card). Regarding ext3, it's a journaling file system with not support at all for B(*/+)trees indexes and metadata storage. It's based on ext2 and it's a good way to add _journaling_ to an existing system, but not giving any more extra features. I checked several sources and XFS seems to be the best contestant. http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/212/ http://linuxgazette.com/issue55/florido.html http://www.linux-france.org/article/sys/ext3fs/Benchmarks/ http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems/ http://bulmalug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=642 Thanks for the input. Omar -----Original Message----- From: Yura Pismerov [mailto:ypismerov@tucows.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 6:34 PM To: Bradley W. Langhorst Cc: Donal Byrne; 'samba@lists.samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] Filesystem for Samba server I said ext3 because it is part of any kernel source code (hence no patches needed when you upgrade). Though you will need patches for ACL and extended attributes support. Also I think it is still fastest on majority benchmark tests. ReiserFS that is part of 2.4.x kernels can compete too. XFS, last time I checked it was noticeable slow on writings. Things might change since then though. When I worked with SGI Irix I loved XFS. IMHO it is one of the best journalling filesystems. AFAIK it was invented and written from scratch in SGI. I hope the Linux port will be soon as good as its original. And yes, LVM is way to go. If you plan to grow your filesystem eventually it will be a matter of adding hardrives, creating a volume and adding it to a group. Then you can use standard utilities (depending on FS you choose) to grow the partition. "Bradley W. Langhorst" wrote:> > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 06:53, Donal Byrne wrote: > > Thanks Yura, bust any reason why ext3 would be better? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yura Pismerov [mailto:ypismerov@tucows.com] > > Sent: 08 October 2002 22:53 > > To: Donal Byrne > > Cc: 'samba@lists.samba.org' > > Subject: Re: [Samba] Filesystem for Samba server > > > > > > > > ext3 is probably the best choice. > > > > > > Donal Byrne wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry if this is a stupid question (bit of a newbie). I'm building a > > Samba > > > > fileserver on a box with a hardware raid array of about 65GB which I'm > > > > hoping to share out to the local LAN . I was wondering if the filesystem > > > > used (ext2,ext3, reiserfs etc) on the partition where the Samba shares > > > > will reside makes much of a difference? I'd obviously like to use a > > > > journalling filesystem but can't seem to find any info to guide my > > choice. > I think you should use XFS - > > 1) it is well supported by sgi > 2) it is mature > 3) it is fast > 4) it is in use on such large filesystems already > 5) acls are native > > I saw somewhere in this thread that someone was considering a 12 disk > raid 5. I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of raid5s and use LVM > if you need the space to be contiguous. I've found that performance is > optimal with about 5 disks > > brad > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Do you know how much time does it take to backup 1.3 TB ? The usage on this disk array would be almost zero, this is supposed to be a backup server... where all the other servers send their backup. [It] Will be (conveniently) located on a different building. On the production servers I'd normally use 4-disk arrays and daily-incremental weekly-full backup policy. By the way, I got some spare hard drives (just like the ones i'm setting up). Greetings, Omar -----Original Message----- From: Bradley W. Langhorst [mailto:brad@langhorst.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 7:04 PM To: Omar Castaneda Acosta Cc: Yura Pismerov; Donal Byrne; samba@lists.samba.org Subject: RE: [Samba] Filesystem for Samba server On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 20:52, Omar Castaneda Acosta wrote:> Actually I tested my RAID card with 2x6, 3x4 and 1x12 configurations, > the 1x12 was the fastest one (of course this is not an SCSI RAIDcard). remember that raid5 can only tolerate one failure and if you build the array new then all your disks will have the same usage pattern and be likely to fail at the same time... also - don't forget about backing up too you probably know this but raid doesn't save you from having to do backups. brad