Oracle Plans To Bring DTrace To Linux

[Ibidem]

Maybe you have missed all the links I posted, that shows that CERN is worried about data corruption? And I showed another link that showed that XFS does not protect against data corruption. Thus, XFS would not be good choice.

Also, I have read that some vendor (is it RedHat) only supports up to 16TB raid sets with XFS. Is this true or false?

Not sure.

I shouldn't have bothered with all the 'clarifications'; I'd hoped to show that 64bit is FAR from obsolete, and not to advocate some other FS. Hence the title I used (Re disk capacities..., not XFS is better)

But yes, XFS in itself is rather vulnerable, and maybe CERN has been moving away from relying on it.
XFS is intended to be used with LVM, which may significantly improve the resilience; it seems zfs wraps volume management up in the FS.

But if you pay attention, it looks like they're using Solaris as the best fileserver, and not for any actual work. Oracle is attempting to convince them to use Niagaras, but no sign of folding yet...

As far as whether they'll move to Solaris, the sl mailing list shows several people disgusted with Oracle's hardware support :

> Approach Oracle reseller to get quote about getting additional drives,
> only to discover that not only did Oracle EOL the J4400 in Dec 2010,
> they also EOLed accessories so it is no longer possible to get the
> drives. EOLing the array itself is fair enough, but the drives too,
> what a way to treat customers that have invested in their products!
> Apparently this is the case with quite a lot of "older" Sun hardware
> not just the J4400.

If you like Solaris you might check out Nexenta. Runs great on
SuperMicro hardware (or even Dell + MD3000's).

We are a fairly big "Sun" shop, but the decision to go with more and
more Dell/IBM/HP is becoming easier and easier -- especially for
running Linux.

[Ibidem]

Maybe you have missed all the links I posted, that shows that CERN is worried about data corruption? And I showed another link that showed that XFS does not protect against data corruption. Thus, XFS would not be good choice.

Also, I have read that some vendor (is it RedHat) only supports up to 16TB raid sets with XFS. Is this true or false?

Misrepresentation.

The Scalable File System Add-On for Red Hat Enterprise Linux uses the XFS® file system to provide support for file systems that are between 16 terabytes and 100 terabytes in size.

RH elsewhere documents that XFS supports up to 16 exabytes.Storage Administration Guide: The XFS filesystem

Yes, it is rather bad about detecting errors.
But did you notice that I used the title "Re disk capacities..."? Maybe I shouldn't have added the last comment in the post: it was intended to be only proof that a 64-bit FS has more than enough disk space. I had intended to show my logic path as to why I looked at the limits for XFS.