From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Use of kmalloc vs vmalloc in ext4? Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:39:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20090425033955.GF13608@mit.edu> References: <6601abe90903110732n5c9df9b9td317be316921b7a6@mail.gmail.com> <532480950904052345m48bc5df5wcdc4c5e32778130c@mail.gmail.com> <20090425030703.GD13608@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Curt Wohlgemuth , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Rubin Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:36134 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752735AbZDYDkD (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:40:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090425030703.GD13608@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: P.S. What sort of flex_bg size are you using? EXT4-fs: not enough memory for 8198 flex groups EXT4-fs: unable to initialize flex_bg meta info! Modern e2fsprogs default to using 16 block groups per flex_bg, which means 8198 flex groups is a little over 16 TB --- which the mainline e2fsprogs doesn't support yet. You wouldn't be using a smaller flex_bg size for some reason, are you? If so, can you say something about why? I've been actually thinking that we might want to bump up the flex_bg size slight more, but it appears you're using something smaller; was this deliberate. - Ted