XFileSharing Pro - EXPERT Question: XFS or EXT4 is better for XFileSharing?

Message
Author
ufkabakan
Posts: 332
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:37 pm

EXPERT Question: XFS or EXT4 is better for XFileSharing?

#1 Postby ufkabakan » Oct 26, 2014 2:28 pm

Hello,

I'm try to migrate my old servers to bigger new servers.
I'm using software Raid5 with 12x4TB disk.

I will use 1 partition on this big raid array 40TB~
I'm using CentOS 7. I have 2 chose now, EXT4 or XFS

Some benchmark tell XFS is faster than EXT4 for big partition with to many files on reading IO. But its have some bed reports about to many delete files procedure.

So, do you have any experience about XFS?

NOTE: I have already EXT4 servers but XFS is a bit new FileSystem for me.
If you can speed test from your home connection for this file and share it to me with your message, it will be great. Thank you

My new data center test file:
http://mirror.dgn.net.tr/centos/7.0.140 ... s/boot.iso


.

ankurs
Posts: 1054
Joined: Mar 10, 2009 2:34 am

#2 Postby ankurs » Oct 27, 2014 8:18 am

raid5 = disaster waiting to happen, also gives poor performance

EXT4 should be the fastest for most workloads.

ufkabakan
Posts: 332
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:37 pm

#3 Postby ufkabakan » Oct 28, 2014 4:18 am

ankurs wrote:raid5 = disaster waiting to happen, also gives poor performance

EXT4 should be the fastest for most workloads.
Raid 5 disaster, Why? Failed 2 disks on same time?

ankurs
Posts: 1054
Joined: Mar 10, 2009 2:34 am

#4 Postby ankurs » Oct 29, 2014 9:03 am

ufkabakan wrote:
ankurs wrote:raid5 = disaster waiting to happen, also gives poor performance

EXT4 should be the fastest for most workloads.
Raid 5 disaster, Why? Failed 2 disks on same time?
yes, use raid6 or raid60

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-r ... n-2009/162

speakerbox
Posts: 73
Joined: Aug 20, 2010 4:39 am

#5 Postby speakerbox » Nov 05, 2014 5:03 pm

We're using raid 6 aswell. The extra safety is good. Apparently if very common for another disk to fail when rebuilding in raid 5 since it's so hard on the drives. Also, there's some other caveats for using raid 5.

Ankurs, do you recommend using a raid card or software?

ankurs
Posts: 1054
Joined: Mar 10, 2009 2:34 am

#6 Postby ankurs » Nov 06, 2014 9:54 am

speakerbox wrote: Ankurs, do you recommend using a raid card or software?
we use s/w raid10, as its customizable/free/stable

but if your using raid6 & have the extra budget, go with raid card

ufkabakan
Posts: 332
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:37 pm

#7 Postby ufkabakan » Nov 27, 2014 7:06 pm

ankurs wrote:
speakerbox wrote: Ankurs, do you recommend using a raid card or software?
we use s/w raid10, as its customizable/free/stable

but if your using raid6 & have the extra budget, go with raid card
How about SnapRAID ?
http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html

Its look like PAR system on Usenet

ankurs
Posts: 1054
Joined: Mar 10, 2009 2:34 am

#8 Postby ankurs » Nov 27, 2014 7:43 pm

ufkabakan wrote: How about SnapRAID ?
http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html

Its look like PAR system on Usenet
never used it

User avatar
PilgrimX182
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mar 22, 2006 1:39 pm

#9 Postby PilgrimX182 » Dec 02, 2014 10:11 am

I always use EXT4 now. Using "mkfs.ext -m 0 /dev/sdb" command to be precise.

As to the raid: RAID5 is evil. Had good results with RAID6 over 6 HDDs. So you can have 4 partitions on 24-HDD server.

Single disks are the winner in perfomance race anyway ;)