@momurda said in Testing Filesystem Performance under Linux 4.11 of XFS, BtrFS, F2Fs and EXT4:

ext4 still the defaults on Debian distro as well.

Well Debian, sure. Not surprised there. Fuddy duddy distro ;)

@Tim_G said in How Does Fedora 25 Split Large Filesystems:

@Reid-Cooper said in How Does Fedora 25 Split Large Filesystems:

@JaredBusch said in How Does Fedora 25 Split Large Filesystems:

I really dislike how CentOS 7 will take a large disk and create a 50GB setup for everything and then a separate partition to everything over 50 and moutn it in /home.

That sounds like they expect that every large install is going to be used for end users to log into. Isn't that pretty unlikely?

That's rarely the case now (at least in my recent personal experience)... maybe 10 years ago it was more likely.

Maybe 20 years ago. :)

Ya with a preallocated qcow2 I can get pretty close to raw speeds. No one is going to notice 10MB/s or even 20 in normal settings.

That list makes hardware RAID sound safer than ZFS, which is probably not quite true. But is the case is that the average implementation of hardware RAID is quite a bit safer than the average implementation of ZFS software RAID. Hardware RAID "handles everything for you" protecting you from most bad decisions. ZFS leaves all the nitty gritty details up to you which makes it super, duper easy to mess something up and leave yourself vulnerable. This is exacerbated by the Cult of ZFS problem and loads of misinformation swirling about its use. So the average person using ZFS is not even remotely prepared for what is needed to use it safely.

Some problems that we see people have when using ZFS without fully understanding storage:

Believing that ZFS doesn't use RAID (this is extremely common.) Believing that RAIDZ is magic, rather than a brand name, and that normal RAID concerns do not apply. So we often see people implement RAID 5 in reckless, insane situations using "it's RAIDZ" as an excuse as if RAIDZ isn't just RAID 5 - literally just a brand name for RAID 5. Treating common features common to all RAID systems as "unique" and believing that ZFS has feature after feature of protection that makes the need to protect against storage failure unnecessary. Not understanding hot swap and blind swap differences and creating systems that they do not know how to address should a drive fail. Believing that ZFS being magic is not at risk from power loss and failing to protect caches from power issues - something that they are not normally used to dealing with as hardware RAID does this for you. Not understanding the CPU and memory needs of ZFS, especially with features like dedupe and RAIDZ3. Ignoring common RAID knowledge and thinking that using ZFS means not using mirroring technologies.

@Tim_G thanks

More recent follow up available here: https://mangolassi.it/topic/9853/comparing-ntfs-and-refs

Not really. I'll do it in a few years when it's time to upgrade disks. But most of that will end up in Amazon Cloud Drive soon.

I would recommend looking at StarWind SA for example.
That solution fits your requirements perfectly, it will also provide you with HA storage that will ensure the business continuity.
As for support, they offer a single point of contact no matter what issue you face, plus the system will be shipped to your site fully preconfigured and pretested.

Ah I think that I knew that. Although I don't feel like I've seen his alter ego much either.