On 4/6/2011 1:16 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> There are other issues with XFS and 32-bit; see:
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3364
> and
> http://www.mail-archive.com/scientific-linux-users@listserv.fnal.gov/msg05347.html
> and google for 'XFS 32-bit 4K stacks' for more of the gory details.
Tha
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 01:16:19 PM Warren Young wrote:
> I expect they added some checks for this since you last tried XFS on 32-bit.
>
> Perhaps it wasn't clear from what I wrote, but the big partition on this
> system is actually 15.9mumble TB, just to be sure we don't even get 1
> byte
On 4/5/2011 11:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> Dropping to 16.37 TB on the RAID configuration by switching to
>> RAID-6 let us put almost the entire array under a single 16 TB XFS
>> filesystem.
>
> You really, really, really don't want to do this.
Actually, it seems that you can't do it any more. I
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> You really, really, really don't want to do this. Not on 32-bit. When you
> roll one byte over 16TB you will lose access to your filesystem, silently,
> and it will not remount on a 32-bit kernel. XFS works best on a 64-bit
> kernel for a
On Monday, April 04, 2011 11:09:29 PM Warren Young wrote:
> I did this test with Bonnie++ on a 3ware/LSI 9750-8i controller, with
> eight WD 3 TB disks attached. Both tests were done with XFS on CentOS
> 5.5, 32-bit. (Yes, 32-bit. Hard requirement for this application.)
[snip]
> For the RAID-
5 matches
Mail list logo
