l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
L U G O D
 
Next Meeting:
August 5: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
TBD
Latest News:
Jul. 4: July, August and September: Security, Photography and Programming for Kids
Page last updated:
2009 Jul 29 15:44

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox-tech mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox-tech] Large File Server - File System?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox-tech] Large File Server - File System?



I think I'm missing why LVM would be good in this situation, it seems
like extra overhead. RAID 6 in this case offers hot swapping of up to 2
failing drives at the same time, so I don't plan to do any mirroring
beyond what the RAID config offers. As for the need to change
partitions, aside from the OS which might have it's own drives, the rest
of the drives are all 1 partition of 8 TB.

Thanks for the info on the file systems. FYI there is a tool to change
Ext drive while online now.

Thanks for the ideas,
Alex

Ted Deppner wrote:
> Use whatever LVM your distro supports.  This might seem like too much,
> or overkill, or whatever, but it allows you to repartition easily, and
> even migrate to another storage system... even while everything is
> live.  I'm partial to ext3, having never, ever lost a ext2/3
> partition, even when physical media started to fail (dd
> conv=sync,noerror is your friend).  (With the understanding that I've
> been using Linux since version 0.92 in the early 90's, and run on
> everything from garage sale cheap ide drives to NetApp SANs, an run
> several entire ISPs on nothing but linux for over a decade, I hope
> it's obvious what a huge endorsement that is.)
> 
> I've used reiserfs with 4 T on a mail server... that worked well and
> you can grow reiserfs volumes while they are online.
> 
> EXT2/3 support resizing (grow or shrink), but must be offline to do a
> shrink. Not a big problem, IMHO.
> 
> XFS looks promising, but I know of no one who's used it extensively,
> nor anything about it's robustness upon underlying disk failures or
> resizing options.
> 
> Basic partition detail I'd use would be two disks, mirrored, for the
> system itself (/, swap, everything needed to boot and run), and then a
> separate LVM volume group for the rest of your physical disks.  This
> allows you the flexibility to move the main LVM volume group to
> another physical computer should the need arise, and/or replace system
> disk(s) indepently.  You mount the main LVM partition wherever and
> then symlink what you need onto it, or use a bind mount if you
> prefer... or if you're doing something like samba shares, have samba
> share directly from the LVM mount (sounds like what you want).  Keep
> the system volume stuff separate from the "content" volume... sooner
> or later you'll want to upgrade something and keeping things logically
> (and to some extent physically) isolated will make that process much
> easier.
> 
> Lastly, any arguments about file system "speed" variations is
> irrelevant, IMHO.  You need file system features more than anything
> else.  (Reiserfs, for instance is better for small files than ext2fs
> is, hence it is good for a mail server with many many many small email
> messages stored as individual files.)
> 
> I've you're new to LVMs... Logical Volume Manager.  disks (or PVs,
> Phyical Volumes) are given to the LVM, and then aggregated as you
> desire into Volume Groups (VGs).  A Volume group will then be used to
> define one or more volumes.  The volumes can be thought of a
> "partition", formattable with your favorite file system and directly
> mounted anywhere you desire.  Volumes and Volume groups can be easily
> grown or shrunk, and volume groups can be extended with more disks, or
> a disk removed by migrating bits off one physical volume onto a new
> one.  You can even move from one file system type to another by
> shrinking and growing volumes.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mandel<tech_dev@wildintellect.com> wrote:
>> So I'm putting in a new file server at work.
>> RAID 6, 8 TB
>> It's purpose is to server large files(1GB+) and large amounts of files
>> to local desktops and servers.(About 25 machines and several web services)
>>
>> 1. What partition scheme would people recommend?
>> Yes I read the whole previous thread on this topic.
>> Here's what I'm thinking:
>> /   10 GB
>> swap - do we even need swap?(we have 12 GB of ram)
>> /var 10-20 GB
>> /tmp    40 GB
>> /home Everything else?
>>
>> 2. More importantly what file system should we use?
>> ext3,ext4,XFS, etc?
>>
>> Note we'll probably run Ubuntu 8.04 LTS which may effect your answer.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>> _______________________________________________
>> vox-tech mailing list
>> vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
>> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
>>
_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech



LinkedIn
LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
facebook
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
Sunset Systems
Who graciously hosts our website & mailing lists!