Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932295Ab0LSQxM (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:53:12 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([75.144.35.66]:37182 "EHLO lucidpixels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752877Ab0LSQxK (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:53:10 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:53:09 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz To: Sandon Van Ness cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz , Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: Is EXT4 the right FS for > 16TB? In-Reply-To: <4D0E3435.30104@van-ness.com> Message-ID: References: <4D0E3435.30104@van-ness.com> 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: 2704 Lines: 71 Hi, Wow, there were no updates though after Eric's last comment.. Eric, have there been any improvements in the past 6 months? Or should one still steer clear from EXT4 > 16TB? Justin. On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Sandon Van Ness wrote: > Was it me (houkouonchi) on hard forum? I asked if > 16 TiB support was > considered stable on here a while back: > > Is >16TB support considered stable? > > This was 6 months ago so maybe things have changed. The thread: > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-ext4/2010/5/28/6884603/thread > > Luckily JFS fixed there userland utilities bug of not being able to > handle > 32TiB very shortly after this and I ended up going that route > and I have yet to have any data loss or problems on my JFS volume: > > root@dekabutsu: 08:32 AM :~# df -H /data > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sdd1 36T 22T 15T 61% /data > root@dekabutsu: 08:32 AM :~# > > At work with our hundreds/thousands of servers we will likely be going > ext4 as we wont be using it on >16 TiB. I think its a huge improvement > over ext3 but for my use JFS ended up being a better fit. I > refuse/refused to go XFS. > > On 12/19/2010 03:52 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> 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-ext4" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > -- > 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/ > -- 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/