Linked by Rahul on Sat 18th Oct 2008 11:29 UTC
Linux While Ext4 was originally merged in 2.6.19, it was marked as a development filesystem. It has been a long time coming but as planned, Ext4dev has been renamed to Ext4 in 2.6.28 to indicate its level of maturity and paving the way for production level deployments. Ext4 filesystem developer Ted Tso also endorsed Btrfs as a multi-vendor, next generation filesystem and along with the interest from Andrew Morton, Btrfs is planned to be merged before 2.6.29 is released. It will follow a similar development process to Ext4 and be initially marked as development only.
Thread beginning with comment 334222
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: relevant?
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Oct 2008 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: relevant?"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

- 60 concurrent Gnome desktop sessions via XDMCP and NX (Web/Mail/Wordprocessing/Spreadsheet, etc.)

- 100 concurrent sessions of a point of sale package

- Intranet web/application server

- Database server

- Internal dhcp server

- Internal name server

- Samba file and print server for legacy Windows stations

- Other stuff


Nice. Very nice.

What distro do you use, and how much RAM does all this take?

Have you thought of splitting the load between a small number of lesser servers?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: relevant?
by hollovoid on Sun 19th Oct 2008 13:39 in reply to "RE[3]: relevant?"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Im kinda interested in that too, I consider my system kinda beastly and im positive it could not even come close to handling all of that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: relevant?
by sbergman27 on Sun 19th Oct 2008 14:03 in reply to "RE[3]: relevant?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

What distro do you use, and how much RAM does all this take?

Currently F8 x86_64, though if I had it all to do over I would have stuck with CentOS. Fedora was pretty rough for the first couple of months we ran it but things have stabilized nicely.

8 GB of memory. I target about 128M per desktop user. 64 bit costs some memory up front, but has more sane memory management. I was running something like 50 desktops on 4GB on x86_32 CentOS 5, but sometimes zone_normal was touch and go. I had to reserve a lot of memory for it which cut into the buffer and page caches a bit. (Linux does a wonderful job with shared memory. Single user desktop admins don't get to see all the wonders it can perform.)

BTW, the it's a dual Xeon 3.2 GHz box. And the processor usage is only moderate. (That's why I chuckle a bit when I hear people talk as if they think multicore is likely to benefit the average user. My 60 desktop users don't even keep 2 cores overly busy!)

With x86_64, no, I don't feel any great need to for more servers. I don't have the luxury, for one thing. And more servers means more administrative overhead. That's one reason that virtualization is such a buzz word today.

Edited 2008-10-19 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2