Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751345AbWC3RkN (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:40:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751346AbWC3RkM (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:40:12 -0500 Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:36019 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbWC3RkK (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:40:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:40:08 -0700 From: Andreas Dilger To: Mingming Cao Cc: Andrew Morton , Takashi Sato , Laurent Vivier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2]Extend ext3 filesystem limit from 8TB to 16TB Message-ID: <20060330174008.GW5030@schatzie.adilger.int> Mail-Followup-To: Mingming Cao , Andrew Morton , Takashi Sato , Laurent Vivier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060325223358sho@rifu.tnes.nec.co.jp> <1143485147.3970.23.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060327131049.2c6a5413.akpm@osdl.org> <20060327225847.GC3756@localhost.localdomain> <1143530126.11560.6.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1143568905.3935.13.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> <1143623605.5046.11.camel@openx2.frec.bull.fr> <1143682730.4045.145.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1143682730.4045.145.camel@dyn9047017067.beaverton.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1096 Lines: 26 On Mar 29, 2006 17:38 -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > Have verified these two patches on a 64 bit machine with 10TB ext3 > filesystem, fsx runs fine for a few hours. Also testes on 32 bit machine > with <8TB ext3. Have you done tests _near_ 8TB with a 32-bit machine, even without these patches? In particular, filling up the filesystem to be close to full so that we really depend on the > 2TB code to work properly? Also, in theory with these patches even a 32-bit machine could run > 8TB, right? There have been sporadic reports of failure for large ext3 filesystems, and some of them say that 32-bit systems fail and 64-bit systems work. There is a kernel bugzilla bug open for this, but it was never really identified what the source of the problem was. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/