default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Reindl Harald]

Am 02.03.2014 02:11, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>> Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
>>>>>>>> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or
>>>>>>>> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's pathological. There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient options considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two or three SSDs + n-way mirroring. RAID 10. Or RAID 1 + linear + XFS for deterministic workloads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those three examples are simpler, more resilient, easier to configure and maintain, perform better, with faster rebuild times than RAID 6 which also has a high read-modify-write penalty. I left that part out.
>>>>
>>>> yes, but RAID6 allows a disk-fault *while* rebuild the RAID after the first one
>>>> RADID 10 *may* do the same if the *right* second disk fails
>>>
>>> If you need two disk failure tolerance use n-way mirroring with three disks, anaconda supports this
>>
>> and if you need failure tolerance *and* performance?
> 
> You need better rootfs performance than what's provided by SSD?

no, i don't use SSD at all and many don't for good reasons

if you do not have endless disk slots and need a lot of storage you
have to decide and no place for rootfs on SSD

>> yes, then use commercial SAN storages…
> 
> OK, but it sounds expensive and demeaning

but it works and has 365/7/24 support in case of troubles
*that* is the place where Fedora has to fight in case of storage

> Yet, I'll grant that it's more sane than rootfs on software RAID 6

and that is why my 30 Fedora production servers are running on top
of VMware vSphere and a HP SAN storage with RAID6 for many years

in that case i do not need to care what Fedora supports "sane" for
rootfs and that is what Fedora needs to beat or the storage area
will continue to run commercial storage area of it comes to business

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140302/ccd1f908/attachment-0001.sig>