Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755708Ab0LSL6j (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:58:39 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([75.144.35.66]:43202 "EHLO lucidpixels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751640Ab0LSL6i (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:58:38 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 348 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:58:37 EST Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:52:49 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz Subject: Is EXT4 the right FS for > 16TB? Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 969 Lines: 24 Hi, I've read a lot of posts regarding people who setup RAID volumes of and up to around 16TB and EXT4 is typically used. However, in various forums, people still ask what is the correct filesystem for > 16TB? I did read one post somewhere that stated the ext4 developers did not recommend using ext4 for very large volumes, is this still true? I am looking at creating a 43TB volume possibly in the near future and I have used XFS in the past, which works well and would probably not have any problem with it; however, I have bitten quite a number of times by XFS bugs in the past several years, so I was curious, how does EXT4 perform on larger volumes, e.g., 20TB? Are there any caveats / problems? Justin. -- 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/