I would throw in my vote for XFS too. I've been running a 7TB software RAID5 at home for many years now with XFS.. zero issues. I am glad I chose it as opposed to ext4 or zfs. -Jordan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:49:17 -0600 From: Andrew Dahl <droidjd at gmail.com> To: TCLUG Mailing List <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> Subject: Re: [tclug-list] zfs/xfs/btrfs Message-ID: <CAFjzMdwHaJsRikjyBmAcuYWvAzS+TyE=eFg3S-gAi+N-88qiEQ at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I would throw my hat in with XFS. It's more mature on Linux than ZFS (I think) and it's going to be the default filesystem on RHEL7, so it should be getting even more attention and use then. (It's also very mature... 19 years old now and it was ported to Linux in the late 90s.) Just my $0.02 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:43 AM, <tclug at freakzilla.com> wrote: > Well, if my RAID truly is dead and I can't recover any of the data on it > (which it's looking like right now) then there's really no problem with me > trashig that thing and letting ZFS take over. > > I have 8 disks in there. What I assumed RAID5 would do with that was 6+2, > which is fine by me. If ZFS can give me the same result as a RAID5 array > can (as in, a continuous 18TB filesystem with 6TB for parity, or whatever) > I'm totally fine with that. I will have to read up on ZFS, which I > should've done ages ago anyway. > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Andrew Berg wrote: > > On 2013.11.06 11:28, tclug at freakzilla.com wrote: >> >>> Yeah, I'm worried especially about stability on Linux, since I'm not >>> rebuilding this entire server (: >>> >>> This is software RAID5 - can ZFS just take over from that? I've not done >>> a >>> ton with it. >>> >> Depends on what you mean by take over. You can have an arbitrary number >> of data disks with an arbitrary number of parity disks (though using >> 2, 4, or 8 data disks is more efficient than other configurations), so >> yes, you can easily do 4+1 with ZFS. >> If you mean have some kind of RAID setup already that you want to put ZFS >> on top of, that's a bad idea and you should let ZFS' zpool >> functionality handle that. You shouldn't (and in some cases can't) use >> other volume management or RAID systems underneath ZFS, since it can >> lead to ZFS making poor decisions based on incorrect information about >> the disks. >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> >> _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20131106/babb896e/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tclug-list at mn-linux.org http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list End of tclug-list Digest, Vol 107, Issue 5 ******************************************