Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 27 August 2010 10:21, Tim Small wrote: > On 27/08/10 09:18, Andrew Robert Nicols wrote: > > As I say, we're primarily a Debian shop and Solaris did used to feel like a > bit of a thorn in the side but things have improved. > > Did you consider/try ZFS on Debian-kFreeBSD instead of OpenSolaris to try > and make things less painful? > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/zfsutils > At the time, it wasn't really an option. This still isn't available in Lenny - only Squeeze and Sid. Andrew -- Systems Developer e: andrew.nic...@luns.net.uk im: a.nic...@jabber.lancs.ac.uk t: +44 (0)1524 5 10147 Lancaster University Network Services is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 04311892. Registered office: University House, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 27/08/10 09:18, Andrew Robert Nicols wrote: As I say, we're primarily a Debian shop and Solaris did used to feel like a bit of a thorn in the side but things have improved. Did you consider/try ZFS on Debian-kFreeBSD instead of OpenSolaris to try and make things less painful? http://packages.debian.org/sid/zfsutils Cheers, Tim. -- South East Open Source Solutions Limited Registered in England and Wales with company number 06134732. Registered Office: 2 Powell Gardens, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1TQ VAT number: 900 6633 53 http://seoss.co.uk/ +44-(0)1273-808309 ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 27 August 2010 09:18, Andrew Robert Nicols wrote: > On 26 August 2010 18:26, Nick Stephens wrote: > >> I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in >> a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. >> > > We're primarily a Debian shop but we've dabbled with ZFS. It's really > pretty good and it's fault tolerance is really reassuring. > I'd avoid OpenSolaris though - since Oracle took over shop, active > development on it has all but stopped. Solaris 10 is actually pretty > reasonable these days. There should be a new release out in the next 2 weeks > from what I recall. > Some other notes I meant to make in my original reply: Our current architecture comprises of an automated system to transfer snapshots from our live server to a secondary server in a second data centre. We perform our backups from the secondary server to reduce potential load on the primary at peak times so we need to be able to read from the secondary. We did try using GFS, and OCFS2 on top of DRBD on a RAID60 configuration on these X4500s but they weren't stable enough for our needs - DRBD couldn't cope with the load. EXT3/4 and XFS weren't suitable as they don't allow for transfer of the data to another host (whilst still being able to read from the seconary for backups). Andrew -- Systems Developer e: andrew.nic...@luns.net.uk im: a.nic...@jabber.lancs.ac.uk t: +44 (0)1524 5 10147 Lancaster University Network Services is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 04311892. Registered office: University House, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Nick Stephens wrote: > Hi all, > > I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 > with about 26TB of space. How soon do you need to put this into production? > I know from my own research that ext4 > supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not > yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. > > I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is > severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. > > I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in > a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. > > Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing > RHEL5 based installations, btw. > If you can afford to either: -Wait for RHEL6 -Run a RHEL6 beta then you may also want to consider using btrfs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs) In case you *really* need a single 26TB filesystem, btrfs offers significant advantages over ext4, especially online fsck, subvolumes, subvolume snapshots etc. Regards, Buchan ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
Hi Nick, On 26 August 2010 18:26, Nick Stephens wrote: > I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in > a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. > We're primarily a Debian shop but we've dabbled with ZFS. It's really pretty good and it's fault tolerance is really reassuring. I'd avoid OpenSolaris though - since Oracle took over shop, active development on it has all but stopped. Solaris 10 is actually pretty reasonable these days. There should be a new release out in the next 2 weeks from what I recall. We run Solaris 10 and ZFS in a RAIDz2 configuration on a SunFire X4500. The X4500 has 48 x 500Gb disks and, after losing 2 for mirrored boot disks, we're left with 46 disks. We've calculated that the optimum number of disks in a zpool is 11, so we have four zpools of 11 disks, and two hot spares which will be used by the first two disks to fail in the zpool. The X4500 also has six SATA controllers and we've calculated a zpool configuration such that we could potentially drop any one controller and there would be no service interruption. So of our 22Tb of raw space (after dropping another 2 disks for hot spares), we get about 16Tb of usable space. You can run in Raidz instead of Raidz2 and, on our configuration, you'd have 18Tb usable space, but you'd lose the ability to drop a controller. Obviously, a lot of this is irrelevant for a MD1000. Our disk usage is primarily lots of small files, with various really large files (zip files for backup, database backups, etc) too. The other *really* nice feature of ZFS is it's snapshot ability. While LVM snapshotting is possible, let's face it, it's pants. With zfs snapshot, you can have a virtually unlimited number of snapshots, you can promote snapshots and mount them elsewhere (read only), delve into any snapshot (handy for restores), and send snapshots over the wire to another server (very useful for backups). On our X4500, we've got 4313 snapshots at present. These are hourly snapshots for the last three months or so, and then daily snapshots since February. We recently purged snapshtos from September 2007 because we just didn't see the point in keeping them any longer. As I say, we're primarily a Debian shop and Solaris did used to feel like a bit of a thorn in the side but things have improved. The package management in Solaris blows compared to Debian and creating packages can be painful. The community packaged software effort on the other hand is really good. There are two main projects - OpenCSW and Blastwave. They did used to be the same project but forked about 18 months ago. We use OpenCSW for various reasons of preference. It's really worth using one or other if you do go for the Solaris route. The zfs-discuss mailing list on Open Solaris used to be really handy for questions on ZFS but I haven't taken part in it for some time. Hope this is of some help, Andrew -- Systems Developer e: andrew.nic...@luns.net.uk im: a.nic...@jabber.lancs.ac.uk t: +44 (0)1524 5 10147 Lancaster University Network Services is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 04311892. Registered office: University House, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YW ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On Thursday 26 August 2010 18:26:19 Nick Stephens wrote: > > I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is > severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. If you tell us what your environment is we can answer the question. One large file system sounds like a very bad idea to me, but without knowing what you are doing it is hard to answer the question in a sensible fashion. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 27 Aug 2010, at 08:28, Davide Ferrari wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 14:09 -0400, Drew Weaver wrote: >> I have a system running 10x2TB drives in RAID-0 in EXT4 and it >> appears >> to work fine in a single partition. > > You *do* love taking risks, uh? :) Squid proxy, CDN or some other kind of cache? The question that intrigues me is whether it's as fast as one would imagine? Stroller. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
RE: >16tb filesystems on linux
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 14:09 -0400, Drew Weaver wrote: > I have a system running 10x2TB drives in RAID-0 in EXT4 and it appears > to work fine in a single partition. You *do* love taking risks, uh? :) -- Davide Ferrari System Administrator Atrapalo S.L. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 2010-08-26 18:30, Nick Stephens wrote: > I actually gave that a shot myself but didn't think it was available yet > due to getting the same error message. Now that I think about it > though, it could be a different issue I'm encountering. > > [r...@localhost ~]# mkfs.ext4dev -T news -m0 -L backup -E > stride=16,stripe-width=208 /dev/sda1 > mke2fs 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) > mkfs.ext4dev: Size of device /dev/sda1 too big to be expressed in 32 > bits > using a blocksize of 4096. Another reason to use LVM: you've put a partition table on your giant block device. Did you align the start of the first partition with your RAID stripe size? If not, then many of your filesystem blocks will span two disks, meaning reading one of those block requires two disks to seek instead of one. If you make the whole block device an LVM physical volume instead, you won't have to worry about that (unless you have a stripe size > 64 kB, and in that case, you can override the default PV metadata size to make it a multiple of your RAID stripe size). See: http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/raidoptimization/ [snip] > The MD1000 is populated with (15) 2TB 7200rpm SAS drives in a RAID-5 > with 1 hotspare (leaving 13 data disks). I know that conventional > wisdom says that raid5 is a poor choice when you are looking for > performance, but localized benchmarking has proven that in our scenario > the total-size gains acquired with the striping outweigh the redundancy > provided with RAID-10 (since we are unable to get significant > performance increases). Consider creating two 7-disk RAID5s instead of a single 14-disk RAID5. This will double your redundancy, and you can still stripe over all 14 disks using LVM. In addition, if you use slots 0-6 for one RAID5 and 7-13 for the other, you can dual-connect the MD1000 and have one SAS channel dedicated to each RAID. Or, as others have suggested, consider RAID6. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 2010-08-26 17:26, Nick Stephens wrote: > Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing > RHEL5 based installations, btw. Don't create very large filesystems. Use LVM. - Very large filesystems take a long time to fsck. Using smaller filesystems with LVM snapshots lets you fsck periodically without even umounting your filesystems. - A serious error or inconsistency in a very large filesystem may blow away all of your data; smaller filesystems constrain the damage. - The properties of one giant filesystem (e.g. striping, inode/block ratio) can't be tuned to the different needs of different types of files you might store. Your application might be more efficient if it put larger files on a different filesystem with a better large-file allocation strategy. - Very large filesystems limit you to a small subset of possible filesystem types. - Very large filesystems keep you from migrating your data to off-the-shelf hardware in an emergency. - You're going to hit limits of some kind sooner or later, so your application should be designed to tolerate having your data on multiple filesystems anyway. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
> The MD1000 is populated with (15) 2TB 7200rpm SAS drives in a RAID-5 > with 1 hotspare (leaving 13 data disks). I know that conventional > wisdom says that raid5 is a poor choice when you are looking for > performance, but localized benchmarking has proven that in our scenario Since you've got such a large logical disk, I would do RAID6 + hotspare for better data security in case of disk failures, but it'll probably be a bit slower than RAID5. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
Have you tried a larger block size? ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
Hi, you could try GFS2, if you are RHEL 5.5 AP 64bit. Here is a quote from the top of this documentation: http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Global_File_System_2/index.html Paul GFS2 is based on a 64-bit architecture, which can theoretically accommodate an 8 EB file system. However, the current supported maximum size of a GFS2 file system is 25 TB. If your system requires GFS2 file systems larger than 25 TB, contact your Red Hat service representative. - Original Message - From: "Nick Stephens" To: linux-poweredge@dell.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:26:19 PM Subject: >16tb filesystems on linux Hi all, I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing RHEL5 based installations, btw. Thanks! Nick ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
You can always build the latest e2fsprogs yourself. They have the 16TB fixes in them but haven't gotten alot of testing so be careful (test it out first). I've heard it's mostly the resizing piece of ext4 that hasn't been exercised much but you can ask the ext4 mailing list. Jeff > Hi all, > > I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 > with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 > supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not > yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. > > I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is > severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. > > I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in > a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. > > Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing > RHEL5 based installations, btw. > > Thanks! > Nick > > ___ > Linux-PowerEdge mailing list > Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge > Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq > ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
RE: >16tb filesystems on linux
I have a system running 10x2TB drives in RAID-0 in EXT4 and it appears to work fine in a single partition. thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: linux-poweredge-boun...@dell.com [mailto:linux-poweredge-boun...@dell.com] On Behalf Of Nick Stephens Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:26 PM To: linux-poweredge@dell.com Subject: >16tb filesystems on linux Hi all, I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing RHEL5 based installations, btw. Thanks! Nick ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
In what scenarios did you experience poor performance with XFS? In our environment, running a farm of massive file servers, XFS has always outperformed ext3 by a large margin. Even the performance comparisons of ext4 that I've seen mostly conclude it was about the same level as XFS if not a little lacking in a few scenarios. We did a pretty extensive benchmarking / performance test for our environment comparing ext3, jfs, xfs, reiserfs, and concluded that XFS was the best for our needs. JFS was a close 2nd, but it didn't handle multiple parallel I/O streams very well. Your statement about XFS comes as a surprise to me... On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 10:26 -0700, Nick Stephens wrote: > Hi all, > > I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 > with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 > supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not > yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. > > I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is > severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. > > I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in > a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. > > Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing > RHEL5 based installations, btw. > > Thanks! > Nick > > ___ > Linux-PowerEdge mailing list > Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge > Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
I actually gave that a shot myself but didn't think it was available yet due to getting the same error message. Now that I think about it though, it could be a different issue I'm encountering. [r...@localhost ~]# mkfs.ext4dev -T news -m0 -L backup -E stride=16,stripe-width=208 /dev/sda1 mke2fs 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) mkfs.ext4dev: Size of device /dev/sda1 too big to be expressed in 32 bits using a blocksize of 4096. To explain: In our environment we don't handle large files at all, but rather millions of jpg images. As such, our file sizes range from around 4kb -> 1mb. The fact that we are utilizing such small amounts of data greatly limits the ability of the hardware to reach it's maximum potential with sustained read/writes. Because of this, I typically create new filesystems using the -T news flag for the greatest amount of inodes as such: [r...@localhost ~]# mkfs.ext4 -T news -m0 -L backup -E stride=16,stripe-width=208 /dev/sdb1 mke4fs 1.41.5 (23-Apr-2009) Filesystem label=backup OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) The MD1000 is populated with (15) 2TB 7200rpm SAS drives in a RAID-5 with 1 hotspare (leaving 13 data disks). I know that conventional wisdom says that raid5 is a poor choice when you are looking for performance, but localized benchmarking has proven that in our scenario the total-size gains acquired with the striping outweigh the redundancy provided with RAID-10 (since we are unable to get significant performance increases). It's been a bit over a year since we did the XFS testing, but iirc we ditched it due to poor delete performance and (i think) overall performance issues. Again it's been a while, but I do remember doing a lot of performance tuning research that did not seem to help us. Going with an opensolaris type option COULD work and has been kicking around in the back of my mind for some time, but I'm hesitant to add a new OS to the environment if I don't need to. Trying to keep it as simple for the rest of the team as possible, within practicality. Thanks all Nick Jeff Layton wrote: > You can always build the latest e2fsprogs yourself. They have > the 16TB fixes in them but haven't gotten alot of testing so > be careful (test it out first). I've heard it's mostly the resizing > piece of ext4 that hasn't been exercised much but you can > ask the ext4 mailing list. > > Jeff > >> Hi all, >> >> I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 >> with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 >> supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not >> yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. >> >> I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is >> severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. >> >> I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in >> a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. >> >> Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing >> RHEL5 based installations, btw. >> >> Thanks! >> Nick ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On 26 Aug 2010, at 18:26, Nick Stephens wrote: > I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 > with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 > supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not > yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. Exactly how many disks and what size? How much usable space Di you expect to get? You should almost certainly be looking RAID10 or similar or you will get hit by 2nd/3rd disks failing during a rebuild. That's half already, so your problem is solved - your filesystem only needs to be 13TB. > > I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is > severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. > > I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in > a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. > > Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing > RHEL5 based installations, btw. With that much data you really should be looking at ZFS. Haven't tried, but could you consider running a Solaris variant as host OS and effectively a NAS for a virtualised RHEL? Or install RHEL on a second box and connect via iSCSI? You haven't told us anything about your application and its requirements so it's a bit difficult to advise. -- Kevin Davidson Apple Certified System Administrator Sent from my iPhone indigospring :Making Sense of IT w http://www.indigospring.co.uk/ t 0870 745 4001 ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: >> I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is >> severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. Really? I guess it depends on what you're trying to do as always. One thing I love about XFS/JFS and other non ext fs is that they don't take years to mkfs. This is how I create my xfs : mkfs.xfs -l size=64m And these are the options I use to mount xfs parts: noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8 What about btrfs? I haven't used that yet, does it allow > 16TB FS? HTH, Sabuj Pattanayek ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: Nick Stephens wrote: I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing RHEL5 based installations, btw. Dividing you 26 TB into multiple partitions is not an option? Nils. It is certainly an option (and was my initial consideration) but would add some difficulties into how we typically handle our disk balancing. It's not out of the question and is my current backup plan, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something that could be better. Nick ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
Re: >16tb filesystems on linux
Nick Stephens wrote: > I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 > with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 > supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not > yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. > > I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is > severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. > > I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in > a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. > > Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing > RHEL5 based installations, btw. Dividing you 26 TB into multiple partitions is not an option? Nils. ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
>16tb filesystems on linux
Hi all, I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 with about 26TB of space. I know from my own research that ext4 supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB. I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option. I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate. Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario? I am utilizing RHEL5 based installations, btw. Thanks! Nick ___ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list Linux-PowerEdge@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
