Frederico Madeira <fred@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > a default instalation of fc3 support how mutch of memory ? and how is > the max file size that they support ?? The same as the underlying Linux kernel. On x86, you should be able to get at least 64 GB of memory. On anything with that much memory, you'd be using a kernel with the 4G/4G patch, which is supposed to handle up to 200 GB of memory: http://lwn.net/Articles/39283/ On AMD64, you should have support for about 1 TB of memory. The Linux documentation states that these days, these are the limits for the ext2 or ext3 filesystems (from Documentation/filesystems/ext2.txt) # Filesystem block size: 1kB 2kB 4kB 8kB # # File size limit: 16GB 256GB 2048GB 2048GB # Filesystem size limit: 2047GB 8192GB 16384GB 32768GB (8K blocks are only available on systems like the Digital Alpha). If you're getting anywhere near those limits, IMHO you should be creating a special filesystem for the unusual data. So, for a database system, you'd want to create a special database FS with 4K block sizes. Frederico also asked: > FC3 is good for database and webserver ??? Wong Kwok-hon wrote: > I think u should use Redhat 9 or FC2 instead because there are being > stabler than FC3 as u saw many asking for fix in FC3. Um. I think we're just seeing teething troubles with people installing FC3. We saw the same with FC2. It looks like we're going to continue to get most of these *install* problems before other distros, due to the sheer amount of features that are being enabled. I'd say that we're seeing this mainly at distro install or update: the distribution appears to be working well with itself, and providing a very good platform. It's just when it has to rely on indifferent and varied hardware to which the Fedora team don't have access that we see a lot of problems. Once you've got FC3 up and working, there don't seem to be that many other problems. But I still wouldn't use it as a "mission-critical" database or web-server. The distribution is supposed to move fast, and does so. But you don't want that in a mission-critical system. You'd be better off with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or one of the (legal) clones like White Box Linux. They've been tested that much more, and are intended to have support for at least five years. Hope this helps, James. -- E-mail address: james | Blessed are the pessimistic, for they take backups. @westexe.demon.co.uk |
