NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
I have my data feeding to a Solaris Intel machine with logging with no RAID..just three data disks and the ldm.pq (thanks to suggestion by Art) on the root disk. I have logging enabled on all disks and it easily keeps up with the full NOAAPORT feed (our SDI here at Universal). I think ext2 is very, very fast, but it's kind of like a highly-tuned Ferrari..pretty fragile and a problem will take you a long time to recover from. It's also possible (I haven't tried it on our new Linux box yet) that ext3 exacts a more severe penalty than Solaris UFS+logging. -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:18 PM Cc: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, David Wojtowicz wrote: > >Also, a word to Redhat 7.3 users: in case you haven't seen it, updated > >psmisc packages are available (http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh73-errata.html). > >There is a bug whereby if you run ldmadmin stop, it sometimes won't > >killall (or even any) of the processes. This patch fixes that problem. > >Otherwise, and even with that, the LDM has never been more stable on my > >system. RH 7.3 really rocks, by far and away the best release yet, IMO. > > NB... do not make the filesystem containing your product queue or > destination of pqact entries an ext3 filesystem. You will pay > severely in performance. Hmmm... that's interesting. How much of a penalty are we talking about? I could (should) put my product queue on an ext2 in that case, but my data needs to be on an ext3 by necessity as I can't wait hours for my multi-GB arrays to fsck if the system should crash or the power fails. Art. Arthur A. Person Research Assistant, System Administrator Penn State Department of Meteorology email: person@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, phone: 814-863-1563
ldm-users
archives: