On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote:
> >
> > Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I chose to use ext3 on these partition
> > >
> > > You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws
> > > that mean I can't really use it properly. A 2TB file system size
> > > limit (at least on the servers I've tested) and it locks the whole
> > > file system while deleting large files, which can take several seconds
> > > and stop ANYTHING from happening during that time. This means that
> > > dropping or truncating large tables in the middle of the day could
> > > halt your database for seconds at a time. This one misfeature means
> > > that ext2/3 are unsuitable for running under a database.
> >
> > I cannot acknowledge or deny the last one, but the first one is not
> > true. I have several volumes in the 4TB+ range on ext3 performing nicely.
> >
> > I can test the "large file stuff", but how large? .. several GB is not a
> > problem here.
>
> Is this on a 64 bit or 32 bit machine? We had the problem with a 32
> bit linux box (not sure what flavor) just a few months ago. I would
> not create a filesystem on a partition of 2+TB
>
OK, according to this it's 16TiB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext2
so I'm not sure what problem we were having. It was a friend setting
up the RAID and I'd already told him to use xfs but he really wanted
to use ext3 because he was more familiar with it.
