3 ms·
Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware of the performance for xfs_repair. But aren't the customers who are using RHEL(paying for a subscription) also the sam
by DASD 13y ago
Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware of the performance for xfs_repair. But aren't the customers who are using RHEL(paying for a subscription) also the same customers who would more likely offload data to a commercial SAN/NAS and rely on their underlying filesystem? Obviously, not in all cases but I would think big data needs would be handled this way.
- rwmj 13y agoI'm rather hoping they'll offload it to Red Hat Storage :-) But my point about "tens of terabytes" was more about local hard drives, not about big data stores.
- Spidler 13y agoWell, as long as there aren't any more data-eating bugs like with thin provisioned LVM in RHEL 6. In that case, xfs_repair did abysmal job in coping with the data corruption, which didn't quite provide confidence.
- sliverstorm 13y agoSome of their customers certainly might, but all? I don't know RHEL's pricing, but I have seen/heard of shops that license RHEL but could never afford a commercial SAN. They probably have very striated pricing tiers; remember, "support" is one of the biggest value-adds of a RHEL subscription, and a little company can get away with less support.
- jdabney 13y agoWe pay for RHEL subscriptions but do both. We have large NAS systems but some machines, like our NFS servers, also have large internal RAID setups. We have bumped into EXT3 max file system size issues in the past and had to use XFS on some hosts.