From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: Is EXT4 the right FS for > 16TB? Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:01:23 -0600 Message-ID: <4D0E3A63.606@sandeen.net> References: <4D0E3435.30104@van-ness.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sandon Van Ness , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz To: Justin Piszcz Return-path: Received: from 64-131-28-21.usfamily.net ([64.131.28.21]:47272 "EHLO mail.sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932172Ab0LSRB1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:01:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > 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.