From: "Jose R. Santos" Subject: Re: ext4 64bit (disk >16TB) question Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:27:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20080715132734.68c64000@ichigo> References: <87bq10w8gv.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Goswin von Brederlow Return-path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:60290 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753208AbYGOS1j (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:27:39 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6FIRaBN006565 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:27:36 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m6FIRa53173352 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:27:36 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6FIRaoN011799 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:27:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87bq10w8gv.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:50:56 +0200 Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Hi, > > we are using lustre on a cluster of servers and raid boxes. Currently > lustre is based on the ext3 code and has a limit of 8TiB for each > filesystem. For us that results on having to split a servers storage > into up to 4 chunks and run one fs on each which I would rather avoid. > The solution for this would be to rebase the lustre patches to use > ext4 instead, which should also reduce the patch set considerably. > Lustre already patches a lot of ext4 features into the ext3 base. > > > But before I start rebasing lustre I though I would first test out > plain ext4 so I know any bugs I find will be from my rebasing and not > already existing in ext4 itself. And there I run into a big problem: > Current e2fsprogs (1.41) seem to be totaly unable to handle the ext4 64BIT > feature, i.e. filesystems larger than 16TiB. The mkfs.ext4 always > stops saying the disk exceeds the 32bit block count. And looking at > the code I see a lot of blk_t (instead of blk64_t) and unsigned long > (instead of unsigned long long [or even better blk64_t]) usage. > > I found ext4 64bit patches for e2fsprogs 1.39 that fix at least > mkfs. Does anyone know if there is an updated patch set for 1.41 > anywhere? And when will that be added to e2fsprogs upstream? Hi Goswin, I've recently submitted a set of patches that covers most of the API changes needed to support >16TB file systems (missing Ted bitmap support of course). Once the bitmap support is included, it _SHOULD_ be relatively painless to add mke2fs support with this series of patches. Stay tune. > MfG > Goswin -JRS