On 27 Feb 2008, at 12:25, brian davies wrote:
> i thought xfs was not supported on SL4? i am worng then this is
> great.
I think this is true out of the box. However, we're using SLC because
of a kernel module issue for our disk servers, so it happens that this
makes xfs easy.
jfs, which, if I recall correctly, is supported by SL, might also be
much better in this regard. It should be trivial to test (just
remember to sync the filesystem after you write the files).
g
>
>
> On 27/02/2008, Santanu Das <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Graeme Stewart wrote:
>>> I think at Glasgow we'll try and migrate half of our disk servers to
>>> xfs, run some tests and see if this is the underlying cause - but
>>> heads up that ext3 might not be a good choice for any new servers
>>> you're installing.
>>>
>>> (Remember you have to run a 64bit OS with xfs, but even 32bit DPM
>>> works fine with this setup.)
>>
>> I'm using xfs for disk servers from the beginning, as advised by
>> the DPM
>> team. I also have 64-bit DPM (disk server only) installed at site.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Santanu
>>
|