default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Ian Malone]

On 1 March 2014 21:37, Orion Poplawski <orion at cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce <simo at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not
>>>> sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's
>>>> that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting
>>>> new filesystems onto ext4 and in the past month we moved probably our
>>>> largest remaining dataset (1.1TB) from XFS to ext4, the main reason
>>>> has been flexibility with resizing. Particularly the XFS 32bit inode
>>>> ceiling, (inode64 not working well with NFS).
>>
>>> As far as I know inode64 is not really a problem on NFS anymore, which
>>> is why I did not raise this as an issue at all (I use NFS and I have a
>>> 6TB XFS filesystem with inode64).
>>>
>>
>> Unless you have legacy systems that must talk to it.
>
> Can we get some definition of "legacy" here?  kernel/nfs-utils versions?
>

I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or
recent Fedora, until recently some that were over five years old. Also
this comment in the XFS FAQ: "Beware that some old programs might have
problems reading 64bit inodes" which seems to be related to stat vs
stat64, there are some old programs that might require us to modify.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk