Hi All,
I am developing a SD Block Driver.
As per old specification (SD Spec 2.0 ) Maximum size of SD memory card is 32 GB.
- We used ext2 file system.
By referring the new Specification (SD Spec 3.0) SD memory card size is reached upto and including 2TB (Terra Byte)
- Block size strictly limited to 512 only (as per specification).
My Questions.
1. For 2TB disk with Block size 512, Which file system is preferred (ext3/ext4)
2.
In a 32 bit machine, If I installed the Fedora 10 ( having ext4), am I
able to use it as effectively ( for the maximum disk/file size usage).
To utilize 2TB or more size hard disk, is this allowable to use 32 bit machine with Ext4 fs?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ramesh
ATTENTION:
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited by law.
If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Arasan Chip Systems, Inc. by telephone at (408) 282-1600 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
Ramesh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> I am developing a SD Block Driver.
>
> As per old specification (SD Spec 2.0 ) Maximum size of SD memory
> card is 32 GB. - We used ext2 file system.
>
> By referring the new Specification (SD Spec 3.0) SD memory card size
> is reached upto and including 2TB (Terra Byte) - Block size strictly
> limited to 512 only (as per specification).
>
> My Questions.
>
> 1. For 2TB disk with Block size 512, Which file system is preferred
> (ext3/ext4)
do you mean sector size of the block device, or block size of the
fileystem? I guess it doesn't matter much either way, 2^32*512 is 2T.
Either ext3 or ext4 can handle this size, you'll probably need to make
your decision based on other factors.
> 2. In a 32 bit machine, If I installed the Fedora 10 ( having ext4),
> am I able to use it as effectively ( for the maximum disk/file size
> usage). To utilize 2TB or more size hard disk, is this allowable to
> use 32 bit machine with Ext4 fs?
>
On a 32 bit machine you will be limited to 16T, this is actually a page
cache limitation. But 2T should be fine.
-Eric
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards, Ramesh
>
Ramesh wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for your prompt and informative reply.
>
>>>> do you mean sector size of the block device, or block size of
>>>> the fileystem?
> For our device sector size is 4906 bytes. But the maximum allowed
> data chunk to read/write is 512( a.k.a Block size), restricted by
> specification.
>
> By referring the wiki pages of EXT3
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3), I saw the below table.
>
> Block size Max file size Max filesystem size
> 1 KiB 16 GiB <2 TiB
> 2 KiB 256 GiB <4 TiB
> 4 KiB 2 TiB <8 TiB
> 8 KiB[limits 1] 2 TiB <16 TiB
Above, block size means the filesystem block size.
For ext3, all 32 bits should be safe on recent kernels and userspace, so
I think the max filesystem sizes listed above are too small by half.
IOW, 4k filesystem blocks -> 16T max filesystem size.
> And by taking the values with the table, then for 512 bytes block
> size, Max file system supported is 1 TB only. Please correct me, if I
> assumed wrongly.
you cannot have a 512 byte block size in ext3, 1k is the minimum.
>>>> I guess it doesn't matter much either way, 2^32*512 is 2T.
>
> In that 32 bit, it using the MSB as signed bit. So it can use maximum
> of 31 bits only. Is this correct?
all 32 bits should be safe now.
>>>> On a 32 bit machine you will be limited to 16T, this is
>>>> actually a page cache limitation. But 2T should be fine.
>
> Please clarify me that Ext4 is using a 48 bit addressing. Is this
> necessary to go for 64 bit machines to utilize Ext4 and manage up to
> and including 2TB size file system... Please clarify me.
The ext4 ondisk format does use 48 bits for physical addressing, but
userspace is still 32 bits only even for ext4.
-Eric
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Regards, Ramesh