Hello,
Can someone point me to a FAQ on which is the best solution for
running a Journalized Filesystem with NFS support under Linux? We've tried
deploying JFS with RedHat 7.3 and NFS and have run into problems. From my
investigation, it appears that XFS is our best option for running NFS with
+2gig file size support.
--
Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company
http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place!
KP-216-121-ST
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
> Can someone point me to a FAQ on which is the best solution for
> running a Journalized Filesystem with NFS support under Linux? We've
> tried deploying JFS with RedHat 7.3 and NFS and have run into
> problems. From my investigation, it appears that XFS is our best
> option for running NFS with +2gig file size support.
>=20
Could you elaborate on what troubles you've had?
I'm running several boxes that have 1TB partitions and run ReiserFS.
One looks like this:
[root@fet1a root]# mount
/dev/hda6 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime)
/dev/sda1 on /storage/disk1 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
/dev/sdb1 on /storage/disk2 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
[root@fet1a root]# df -ht reiserfs=20
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 1.0T 809G 260G 76% /storage/disk1
/dev/sdb1 1.0T 33M 1.0T 1% /storage/disk2
Magnus
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 11:48, Greg Boehnlein wrote:
> Hello,
> Can someone point me to a FAQ on which is the best solution for
> running a Journalized Filesystem with NFS support under Linux? We've tried
> deploying JFS with RedHat 7.3 and NFS and have run into problems. From my
> investigation, it appears that XFS is our best option for running NFS with
> +2gig file size support.
>
ext3 works fine and it works w/o patching your 2.4 kernel.
-sv
Magnus Naeslund(f) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello,
[snip]
>=20
> Could you elaborate on what troubles you've had?
> I'm running several boxes that have 1TB partitions and run ReiserFS.
>=20
> One looks like this:
>=20
> [root@fet1a root]# mount
> /dev/hda6 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime)
> /dev/sda1 on /storage/disk1 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
> /dev/sdb1 on /storage/disk2 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
>=20
> [root@fet1a root]# df -ht reiserfs
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda1 1.0T 809G 260G 76% /storage/disk1
> /dev/sdb1 1.0T 33M 1.0T 1% /storage/disk2
>=20
> Magnus
>=20
Argh!
Responding to my self...
This system is an vanilla RH 7.3 system also.
I just created a 5gb fil over nfs, and it worked just fine...
Magnus
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am Freitag, 20. September 2002 17:48 schrieb Greg Boehnlein:
> Hello,
> Can someone point me to a FAQ on which is the best solution for
> running a Journalized Filesystem with NFS support under Linux? We've
> tried deploying JFS with RedHat 7.3 and NFS and have run into problems.
> From my investigation, it appears that XFS is our best option for
> running NFS with +2gig file size support.
Full Ack. We are runneing here somwhat >6 TB NFS Servers with XFS.
(Applications: NFS, Samba, SapDB) XFS ist nearly unbraekable.
The worst problem we had was with the bleeding edge Kernel 2.4.19
from the CVS sources in a test box, where a log-replay-race coused a
singular kernal crash. After rebooting/reseting this box, all was fine.
The log-replay-race condition isr IMHO solved.
mfG
Jojo
- --
J?rgen Sauer - AutomatiX GmbH, +49-4209-4699, [email protected] **
** Das Linux Systemhaus - Service - Support - Server - L?sungen **
http://www.automatix.de to Mail me: remove: -not-for-spawm- **
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj2LWDIACgkQW7UKI9EqarGGgACgsZnc4Se43Z92MKvW7s6fL2FS
zhMAoJ1coSMiZFmfzLwhOPGPgqgWr8lQ
=8Zgy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Just wanted to second troubles with JFS over NFS.
We solved an easily repeatable problem with "ls" by of all things adding
users to the NFS server (a fix someone had found for problems with "du").
However, we've continued to see intermittent problems so we've been
replacing JFS with EXT3 (which does support >2gb files these days)
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:
> Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Can someone point me to a FAQ on which is the best solution for
> > running a Journalized Filesystem with NFS support under Linux? We've
> > tried deploying JFS with RedHat 7.3 and NFS and have run into
> > problems. From my investigation, it appears that XFS is our best
> > option for running NFS with +2gig file size support.
> >
>
> Could you elaborate on what troubles you've had?
> I'm running several boxes that have 1TB partitions and run ReiserFS.
>
> One looks like this:
>
> [root@fet1a root]# mount
> /dev/hda6 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime)
> /dev/sda1 on /storage/disk1 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
> /dev/sdb1 on /storage/disk2 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
>
> [root@fet1a root]# df -ht reiserfs
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda1 1.0T 809G 260G 76% /storage/disk1
> /dev/sdb1 1.0T 33M 1.0T 1% /storage/disk2
>
> Magnus
Let me bring you up to speed on what we are doing, and provide an accurate
idea of what our needs and requirements are. Instead of backing our data
up directly to tape, we instead dump it to a large 320 Gig, RAID-5
partition on a Linux box. That, in turn, is backed up to tape on a regular
basis and taken offsite. Recent growth of data on some of our "Cobalt Raq"
servers has forced us to upgrade to a filesystem that can handle file
sizes of greater than 2 gigs. (Why Cobalt doesn't split their backup
archives into multiple pieces is beyond me). On occasion, this partition
needs to be accessible via NFS for other Servers and workstations.
Obviously with a file system of that size, a journaling system would be
advantageous.
So, we need three main things:
1. Journaling File System
2. Large file support
3. NFS Compatibility
I had suggested XFS to my Operations Manager, but he decided to try using
JFS, as it was an included option in RedHat 7.3. Installation went
beautifully, and everything was peachy, until we tried to export that
file-system via NFS. Doing so caused the load average on the box to
skyrocket.. Apparently, NFS and JFS don't get along very well together.
Our solution? Use XFS. ;) However, there do appear to be issues between
JFS and NFS... Not sure where, or what, but I thought I'd mention it.
--
Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company
http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place!
KP-216-121-ST
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Be sure to do thorough testing under high load if you decide to use
XFS. I currently use it for a lot of things, including NFS shares, but
in some installations I've had severe data corruption. Only the latest
code contains all the fixes. Release 1.1, the latest "release" code,
did not work for me. It can work, and when it does it's great, but it
requires a lot of good testing.
Chris Tooley
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:36, Greg Boehnlein wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:
>
> > Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > Can someone point me to a FAQ on which is the best solution for
> > > running a Journalized Filesystem with NFS support under Linux? We've
> > > tried deploying JFS with RedHat 7.3 and NFS and have run into
> > > problems. From my investigation, it appears that XFS is our best
> > > option for running NFS with +2gig file size support.
> > >
> >
> > Could you elaborate on what troubles you've had?
> > I'm running several boxes that have 1TB partitions and run ReiserFS.
> >
> > One looks like this:
> >
> > [root@fet1a root]# mount
> > /dev/hda6 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime)
> > /dev/sda1 on /storage/disk1 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
> > /dev/sdb1 on /storage/disk2 type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail)
> >
> > [root@fet1a root]# df -ht reiserfs
> > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > /dev/sda1 1.0T 809G 260G 76% /storage/disk1
> > /dev/sdb1 1.0T 33M 1.0T 1% /storage/disk2
> >
> > Magnus
>
> Let me bring you up to speed on what we are doing, and provide an accurate
> idea of what our needs and requirements are. Instead of backing our data
> up directly to tape, we instead dump it to a large 320 Gig, RAID-5
> partition on a Linux box. That, in turn, is backed up to tape on a regular
> basis and taken offsite. Recent growth of data on some of our "Cobalt Raq"
> servers has forced us to upgrade to a filesystem that can handle file
> sizes of greater than 2 gigs. (Why Cobalt doesn't split their backup
> archives into multiple pieces is beyond me). On occasion, this partition
> needs to be accessible via NFS for other Servers and workstations.
> Obviously with a file system of that size, a journaling system would be
> advantageous.
>
> So, we need three main things:
> 1. Journaling File System
> 2. Large file support
> 3. NFS Compatibility
>
> I had suggested XFS to my Operations Manager, but he decided to try using
> JFS, as it was an included option in RedHat 7.3. Installation went
> beautifully, and everything was peachy, until we tried to export that
> file-system via NFS. Doing so caused the load average on the box to
> skyrocket.. Apparently, NFS and JFS don't get along very well together.
>
> Our solution? Use XFS. ;) However, there do appear to be issues between
> JFS and NFS... Not sure where, or what, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
> --
> Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company
> http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place!
> KP-216-121-ST
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> NFS maillist - [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> writes:
> Let me bring you up to speed on what we are doing, and provide an accurate
> idea of what our needs and requirements are. Instead of backing our data
> up directly to tape, we instead dump it to a large 320 Gig, RAID-5
> partition on a Linux box. That, in turn, is backed up to tape on a regular
> basis and taken offsite. Recent growth of data on some of our "Cobalt Raq"
> servers has forced us to upgrade to a filesystem that can handle file
> sizes of greater than 2 gigs. (Why Cobalt doesn't split their backup
> archives into multiple pieces is beyond me). On occasion, this partition
> needs to be accessible via NFS for other Servers and workstations.
> Obviously with a file system of that size, a journaling system would be
> advantageous.
>
> So, we need three main things:
> 1. Journaling File System
> 2. Large file support
> 3. NFS Compatibility
>
> I had suggested XFS to my Operations Manager, but he decided to try using
> JFS, as it was an included option in RedHat 7.3. Installation went
> beautifully, and everything was peachy, until we tried to export that
> file-system via NFS. Doing so caused the load average on the box to
> skyrocket.. Apparently, NFS and JFS don't get along very well together.
>
> Our solution? Use XFS. ;) However, there do appear to be issues between
> JFS and NFS... Not sure where, or what, but I thought I'd mention it.
I'd be curious to know why you did not choose the "easy" solution:
ext3. It is journalled, it has LFS support, and works flawlessly with
NFS.
Phil.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On 21 Sep 2002, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Let me bring you up to speed on what we are doing, and provide an accurate
> > idea of what our needs and requirements are. Instead of backing our data
> > up directly to tape, we instead dump it to a large 320 Gig, RAID-5
> > partition on a Linux box. That, in turn, is backed up to tape on a regular
> > basis and taken offsite. Recent growth of data on some of our "Cobalt Raq"
> > servers has forced us to upgrade to a filesystem that can handle file
> > sizes of greater than 2 gigs. (Why Cobalt doesn't split their backup
> > archives into multiple pieces is beyond me). On occasion, this partition
> > needs to be accessible via NFS for other Servers and workstations.
> > Obviously with a file system of that size, a journaling system would be
> > advantageous.
> >
> > So, we need three main things:
> > 1. Journaling File System
> > 2. Large file support
> > 3. NFS Compatibility
> >
> > I had suggested XFS to my Operations Manager, but he decided to try using
> > JFS, as it was an included option in RedHat 7.3. Installation went
> > beautifully, and everything was peachy, until we tried to export that
> > file-system via NFS. Doing so caused the load average on the box to
> > skyrocket.. Apparently, NFS and JFS don't get along very well together.
> >
> > Our solution? Use XFS. ;) However, there do appear to be issues between
> > JFS and NFS... Not sure where, or what, but I thought I'd mention it.
>
> I'd be curious to know why you did not choose the "easy" solution:
> ext3. It is journalled, it has LFS support, and works flawlessly with
> NFS.
Because I was under the impression that EXT3 does not support file sizes
greater than 2 gigabytes. If I am wrong, I would prefer to use ext3... But
I can't find anything that tells me what the filesize limitation is for
ext3.
--
Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company
http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place!
KP-216-121-ST
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> writes:
> On 21 Sep 2002, Philippe Troin wrote:
>
> > Greg Boehnlein <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Let me bring you up to speed on what we are doing, and provide an accurate
> > > idea of what our needs and requirements are. Instead of backing our data
> > > up directly to tape, we instead dump it to a large 320 Gig, RAID-5
> > > partition on a Linux box. That, in turn, is backed up to tape on a regular
> > > basis and taken offsite. Recent growth of data on some of our "Cobalt Raq"
> > > servers has forced us to upgrade to a filesystem that can handle file
> > > sizes of greater than 2 gigs. (Why Cobalt doesn't split their backup
> > > archives into multiple pieces is beyond me). On occasion, this partition
> > > needs to be accessible via NFS for other Servers and workstations.
> > > Obviously with a file system of that size, a journaling system would be
> > > advantageous.
> > >
> > > So, we need three main things:
> > > 1. Journaling File System
> > > 2. Large file support
> > > 3. NFS Compatibility
> > >
> > > I had suggested XFS to my Operations Manager, but he decided to try using
> > > JFS, as it was an included option in RedHat 7.3. Installation went
> > > beautifully, and everything was peachy, until we tried to export that
> > > file-system via NFS. Doing so caused the load average on the box to
> > > skyrocket.. Apparently, NFS and JFS don't get along very well together.
> > >
> > > Our solution? Use XFS. ;) However, there do appear to be issues between
> > > JFS and NFS... Not sure where, or what, but I thought I'd mention it.
> >
> > I'd be curious to know why you did not choose the "easy" solution:
> > ext3. It is journalled, it has LFS support, and works flawlessly with
> > NFS.
>
> Because I was under the impression that EXT3 does not support file sizes
> greater than 2 gigabytes. If I am wrong, I would prefer to use ext3... But
> I can't find anything that tells me what the filesize limitation is for
> ext3.
Well, ext3 works very well here in the conditions you've described :-)
And no kernel patching is required.
Phil.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs