[Samba] Filesystem for Samba server
ypismerov at tucows.com
Thu Oct 10 01:00:01 GMT 2002
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 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.
Well, I know what ext3 is.
But I believe for most people journal feature is the only feature they
Just to avoid long filesystem checks should the box be booted after
> I checked several sources and XFS seems to be the best contestant.
Ok, I think I should try it again. :)
> Thanks for the input.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yura Pismerov [mailto:ypismerov at tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 6:34 PM
> To: Bradley W. Langhorst
> Cc: Donal Byrne; 'samba at 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 at tucows.com]
> > > Sent: 08 October 2002 22:53
> > > To: Donal Byrne
> > > Cc: 'samba at 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
More information about the samba