Re: [MooseFS-Users] BTRFS

[Ricardo J. B. <ric...@do...>]

(This mail was supposed to go through last week during sourceForge's outage, 
sorry if it arrives duplicate).

El Jueves 16/07/2015, F. O. Ozbek escribió:
> On 07/15/2015 10:09 PM, Michael Tinsay wrote:
> > Is there a performance boost in increasing the chunkservers and goal?
> > Adding an additional chunkserver would be more expensive than doubling
> > the current storage space; and I still have enough drive bays in each
> > chunkserver for this.  So at the moment, I can only justify spending for
> > an additional server if there is a significant performance improvement.
> >
> > It is very gratifying to see that upgrading to 2.x would greatly reduce
> > my concern.  So I guess I'll have to stick it out with ext4 until btrfs
> > is tested more -- I had several bad experiences (fs/data corruption)
> > with xfs in the past that made me stay away from it for good.
>
> We have used xfs on several servers with couple hundred TBs of actual
> data with no problems. I don't know how long ago you had
> bad experiences with xfs but it is probably worth trying again.
>
> Even in the case of an underlying filesystem corruption,
> keep in mind that MooseFS has built-in error detection and
> self healing capabilities. If it detects an error with a chunk
> it will recreate it from a safe copy of that chunk.

And in case a filesystem check is needed, xfs_repair is much faster (if a  
memory hog) than e2fsck in my experience, which is a plus with filesystems  
over 1TB.

But then again, I've only been using XFS with CentOS 7 for about a year or so,  
always used ext3/4 with CentOS 5/6, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc.

Regards,
-- 
Ricardo J. Barberis
Senior SysAdmin / IT Architect
DonWeb
La Actitud Es Todo
www.DonWeb.com