On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)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?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301
http://www.cora.nwra.com