similar to: big file server

We are looking at implementing a Linux box running samba in the near future with about 1TB of disk online. The purpose of this box will be for basic file and printer sharing needs. I am doing research on the different journaling file systems avaible in RH 7.3 and up (ext3, reiserFS, and JFS) and was wondering if anyone has had any real world experience with them (mostly reiserFS and JFS) and

Hi! I was just wondering how Ext3 and Reiserfs compare. When I reinstalled my server (because of a stupid hacker) I took the opportunity to change to ReiserFS. And I have to say it's really much faster than Ext3. I don't have benchmarks, but for example, stuff like "make dep" on the linux kernel is much faster (even though I had enabled write cache when I was using ext3). So

I made some tests to see how ext3 reiserfs 3.6 and jfs survive disk errors. The test is simple: format a partition, copy the kernel source, unmount and and do ?dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdd bs=512 count=100000 seek=30000? to simulate a disk surface damage and then run fsck. seek=30000 ? this must be the second half of journal in reiserfs and ext3, for jfs I don't know Result: jfs: ---- total

Hi, I've heard that for Dovecot/Mailir systems there are filesystems that are optimised for the situation of many small files in one folder. Could I possibly have some feedback on what the recommended filesystems are? I've heard of ReiserFS but was wondering what other options there are and how they compare. If I get a good comprehensive response I'll build a wiki summary page

>> > > ... On my PCs the mtime remains unmodified. >> > > It's a weird thing if it happens under normal >> > > circumstances ... But if it only happens when >> > > you fake the identity from within the Office >> > > programs, well, I wouldn't bother really. >> > > >> > I totally agree ! >> >>

>> > > Fine. Use reiserfs and don't worry about ctime. >> > >> > Why? Does reiserfs handle ctime in a different >> > way than other linux filesystems? >> >> It's not supposed to given the same instructions >> from clients but it appears to because perhaps it >> elicits different kind of response from Office. >> Maybe

Now that I've been enlightened to the terrible write performance of ext3 on my new 3Ware RAID 5 array, I'm stuck choosing an alternative filesystem. I benchmarked XFS, JFS, ReiserFS and ext3 and they came back in that order from best to worst performer. I'm leaning towards XFS because of performance and because centosplus makes kernel modules available for the stock kernel.

Dear Listmembers, I try to work with samba (newest rpm for SuSE, 3.0.1.pre2, but that does not matter, the effect was there in 2.2.7 and 2.2.8a too) on an sufficient armed system (the system does not matter either, I have tried it on different machines) using ReiserFS (version 3.6.4-12). When accessing one share from one machine (i.e. copying two or more files at a time to or from the share)

hi I read ( I think in dovecot wiki) that ext2 or ext3 fs on a 2.4 kernel can get slow due to the number of files in a directory. Does anyone know if kernel 2.6 has similar limitation? I'm not at that point now, but before the box goes live, I'm wondering if I should resolve that. Glenn

Hi all, I am running a samba server (2.0.3) in a small eth-based home network. There is only one win client (NT workstation, Sp4). The samba box ist set up with wins support enabled and the NT box? wins server entry points to samba server. Everything works fine: no error messages neither server nor client. The server shows up immediately in the NT?s network neigborhood. Browsing is fast. !!But

Hello, I''m setting up a Xen system since I have diferent choices to create the domU''s partitions: raw partition, lvm, files. I''ve done some tests with hdparm and it all seems to be the same. Can anyone, please, share with me what if the best method. Best regards, Luis _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list

>>>> Fine. Use reiserfs and don't worry about ctime. >>>> >>> But reiserfs doesn´t support ACLs. Does it? >> >> Oh yes, it does. Big way. >> > ?? > > I was under the impression that if i wanted acls, i > should use xfs, ext3 (or jsf i believe) but NOT > reisersf. > > Am I wrong? Does (for example) SuSE 8.2 with >

hello, i'm a new suscriber of this mailing-list, hoping i'll be able to help u. But before i've a question. I've to mount a huge file server using Samba. We bought a new server, using raid 5 technology. My question is, now i've to install on it my favorite operating system :) and i ask me which filesystem type i've to use to increase Samba performances on it, some people

I have a very simple setup here that I have recently made some modifications to and it has affected my ability to save files to the linux samba server. The recent changes are: converted all fs's to xfs from ext3. Upgraded to latest kernel 2.6.7 from a 2.4 kernel. Samba used to work fine. Now, I can copy files out of my linux samba server to my windows machine at full speed. However, when

Hello List, does anyone have also problems with Samba, OpenLDAP and RaiserFS? We have a LDAP on three servers and only the one who runs under RaiserFS crashed every week. Whats your opinion? matze

I posted about 2 weeks ago about problems we were having copying files larger than about 17.6GB from NT to Samba 2.2.8a-1 on a Raidzone 1.3TB system. Since then we have done much investigation, together with the RZ people. I wanted to briefly post the current situation, in hopes someone may have some suggestions. One of the most recent and enlightening things we tried was to hang a spare

ARGH! I'm wondering if airing thoughts about VFAT performance publicly was a good idea. I was only interested from a technical point of view - I would NOT recommend using it on a production server unless there happened to be a real case for using it. The biggest thing to bear in mind in your case is that VFAT does NOT support ACLs or disk quotas. It also doesn't support journalling and

XFS is the best filesystem. David Weinehall wrote: >On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:33:13PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote: > > >>On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 09:34, Peter Nelson wrote: >> >> >>>Hans Reiser wrote: >>> >>>I'm confused as to why performing a benchmark out of cache as opposed to >>>on disk would hurt performance? >>>

> 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

Hi there, i still have a weird problem with Powerpoint an Excel files stored on a Samba share. Only read on if you -use a samba share as MULTI-user file repository (no force_user etc.) -where multiple, different users share files in common directories -the modification time of a file is of any relevance to you. (seems like lots of folks don?t bother access rights or keep their information