Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Eray Ozkural erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.trThu May 9 13:02:31 PDT 2002
- Previous message: Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
- Next message: Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thursday 09 May 2002 19:54, Chris Black wrote: > > I am generally very happy with reiserfs (especially under 2.4), in > particular its handling of directories with thousands of results files > from cluster jobs. That's really an advantage. Space utilization is in fact quite important for contemporary applications on UNIX. Especially since we tend to have so many small files such as sources, etc. nowadays. The savings can be significant. If reiserfs has matured, it would be great for clusters. Things are changing too fast, and I suppose I will have to retract that statement of mine. :)The most important feature in a beowulf cluster would be no-fs-death-on-crash. It's very easy to crash a node with a suitable code, so I shouldn't have to re-install it or manually fsck it every time it fails to reboot after such a crash... So maybe in the meantime JFS has matured, too? Thanks for your comments, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
- Previous message: Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
- Next message: Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
