From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: filesystems bigger than 16 TB? Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:35:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4E03251F.4040603@wpkg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.virtall.com ([178.63.195.102]:60246 "EHLO mail.virtall.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758724Ab1FWLgC (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:36:02 -0400 Received: from mail.virtall.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.virtall.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7D43648F0 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:36:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.10.145] (e183095092.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.183.95.92]) by mail.virtall.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3AB636484B for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:35:59 +0200 (CEST) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: With mkfs.ext4 from 1.41.14, it is not possible to create a filesystem which is bigger than 16 TB: mkfs.ext4: Size of device /dev/sdb too big to be expressed in 32 bits using a blocksize of 4096. But I see it succeeds with the latest git version of e2fsprogs. The question is: how reliable such a filesystem is? On a system which is supposed to be reliable, perhaps I'll be better off with xfs for such large filesystems? I'm using Debian Squeeze, which has a 2.6.32 kernel. -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org