Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 89AC54697 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 93432 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2011 18:23:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 93372 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jun 2011 18:23:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 93359 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jun 2011 18:23:41 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:23:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO awittena-md.linkedin.biz) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username aw, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:23:41 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Thinking about 20.204 and beyond From: Allen Wittenauer In-Reply-To: <4E0335E1.9010109@apache.org> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:23:40 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4E18CE25-6863-4318-8A95-17896B0B87D1@yahoo-inc.com> <0C4895F3-95E8-45ED-B2B0-C3BF4B5436B1@gbiv.com> <4E0082D9.5090607@apache.org> <4E01B627.6000304@apache.org> <4E0335E1.9010109@apache.org> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) On Jun 23, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > On 22/06/2011 17:27, Allen Wittenauer wrote: >>=20 >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: >>>=20 >>> I haven't even heard of anyone who owns up to moving to ext4 fs = underneath. >>=20 >> Yes you do. >>=20 >> :D >>=20 >=20 > Did it work? > and RHEL6.0? We've been using ext4 for HDFS and MR spill space (the rest are = ext3) on CentOS 5.5 in some form or another for almost a year now. No = issues to report, other than it isn't ZFS (so we lost some functionality = that we greatly miss). At this point, we're waiting for 6.1 or 6.2 before changing our = Linux version. RH (historically) has too much shift between 0->1->2 = for it to be considered stable until the .2 release. But we might jump = on .1 anyway.=