[SATLUG] choosing a filesystem

[John Pappas]

FWIW, I run my production environment in a similar way.  Keeps data
compartmentalized and Applicaitons discrete.  Upgrades are subsequently
limited to breaking one app, rather than all apps.  Since linux can be tuned
to minimize overhead, the VM overhead is minimal.  More below:

On 1/4/07, Alex Bartonek <bartonekdragracing at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Geoff <geoff at w5omr.shacknet.nu> wrote:
>
> > Alex Bartonek wrote:
> >
> > I prefer RieserFS because of the journaling.
> >


I like Reiser due to its handling of small files, and since *nix likes small
text config files, that is a good fit for a root.  I also love the
`resize_reiserfs` command.  I have used it extensively (in parallel with LVM
of course) to manage my storage.  EXT is not as resize friendly AFAIK.
Maybe recent development efforts will prove this to be wrong.  XFS is NOT as
resize friendly, but it is REALLY good with small files, and has a larger
set of tools (xfsdump/xfsrestore, etc).

I am sure SUSE has moved back to EXT3 since Mr Reiser's run in with the
law.  If the project's namesake is out of the picture, then a risk adverse
company will move to a less risky default.

> > For what I do..video editing would be the
> > > biggest hd hog, but I also run a VMWare session
> > which
> > > is my webserver and another vm machine.
> > >


EXT3 (with appropo options) is very good with big files (Video, VMDK's) so I
would not be uncomfortable recommending that solution.  I will have to
revisit EXT3 and see if an LVM resize is handled better now.  If you do not
find yourself resizing space a lot, then this shortcomming should not affect
your selection of FS's.

BTW, SATLUG has had extensive FS discussions in the past, so you would be
well served with an archive search.

> If you don't mind my asking, Alex.. what's wrong
> > with using the Apache
> > web-server that comes with SuSE?


Nothing, But having SugarCRM, Drupal, Alfresco, and Zimbra running on the
same OS instance would be less than ideal.  I have 5 Minimal SUSE instances
running on my Dual Opteron server for exactly that reason.  The
aforementioned compartmentalization pays off big for me.

I do that because it gives me the luxury of upgrading
> my system without having to worry about breaking
> anything with a OS update.


Amen, VMWare brothers!

That webserver is running apache/mysql/php/etc on a SuSE 10.1 VM
> session.  If
> for whatever reason my mobo goes caput, I can just
> copy my vm session to another system and viola..up and
> running again.  Speed wise...my system is quick,
> plenty of memory/hd space.. I dont notice a big slow
> down running vmware.


Again, Agreed.  Even though my shop is small, the benefits FAR outweigh the
costs.  Besides, many have called me a VMWare bigot, so I have to "put my
money where my mouth is".  Have 4 production servers, and 14 OS (11 SUSE, 2
MS, 1 Fedora) instances, 7 of which are production.  The only thing that
help me, is a shared storage situation so that I could do workload
management more seamlessly, as well as increase availability of VMs.  I have
been eyeing the Dell SAS array, using external SAS connectivity, rather than
ISCSI or FC.  I like the ATAoE stuff, but VMWare ESX is not supported with
that config, yet at least.  I have not personally used a clustered FS
otherthan VMFS for sharing VMDK files between processor heads.  I am sure
that Luster, OCFS, or GFS would work, but I am not sure how it works with
ATAoE.

John