Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:35:01 -0800 | From | Sandon Van Ness <> | Subject | Re: Is EXT4 the right FS for > 16TB? |
| |
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. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
| |