Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932348Ab0LSROs (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:14:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7568 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932137Ab0LSROr (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:14:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4D0E3D80.4060607@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:14:40 -0500 From: Ric Wheeler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Sandeen , Justin Piszcz , Sandon Van Ness CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz Subject: Re: Is EXT4 the right FS for > 16TB? References: <4D0E3435.30104@van-ness.com> <4D0E3A63.606@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4D0E3A63.606@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2988 Lines: 79 On 12/19/2010 12:01 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 12/19/10 10:53 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> 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? > There is still no released e2fsprogs which supports> 16T for > ext4, but testing of the not-released bits is welcomed... > Ted says a 16T-capable version is coming soon. There's still > work to be done there, though. > > -Eric I usually tend to point people towards XFS when you need something at greater than 16TB in size.... Good luck, Ric >> 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/