From: Chris Puttick Subject: Practical partition/volume size limitation Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:32:12 +0000 Message-ID: <388f7e1a1002091032p633a7db4of269cccd4a8142bc@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:63132 "EHLO mail-yx0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004Ab0BIScO (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:32:14 -0500 Received: by yxe31 with SMTP id 31so7074730yxe.21 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:32:14 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi all Sorry to intrude and please feel free to redirect me to another more appropriate list or alternative source (which I have been unable to find). We're considering a large-scale filestore deployment (starting with 32TB, single volume) and some team members have concerns about the practical scalability of ext4 e.g. time to run fsck. So some questions :) Are there any examples of organisations running ext4 with large-scale filestores? What sort of sizes? What issues, if any, have been encountered? And if not ext4, what else (assuming a Linux preference)? Thanks in advance. Chris Puttick -- My employers website: http://thehumanjourney.net - opinions in this email are however very much my own and may not reflect that of my current employer, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc.. Documents attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format: http://iso26300.info