On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ <pauljerome at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov <mm at yuhu.biz> wrote: > >> On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote: > >>> I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be > >>> re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before > >>> starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4. > >>> > >>> I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project > >>> requires ext3/ext4. > >>> > >>> I'm always very cautious before jumping onto a new FS, (new in the > >>> sense it is officially supported now) > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance! > >> > >> I'm running some 50 servers with ext4 each server has 2x15TB ext4 > >> partitions. I haven't had an issue with that setup. The first server > >> was setup 3 years ago. It is quite faster then XFS in terms of write > >> performance and thus far reliable without any major problem. > >> > >> Keep in mind that user land tools are limited and the biggest partition > >> you can create with them at the moment is 16TB. You can recompile the > >> tools and remove this limitation if that is a problem for you. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Marian Marinov > > > > Thanks for all the great replies everyone. > > > > I've got an 18TB partition - the limit is 16TB even in x86_64? > > Answering my own question yes, 16TB is the limit. > Has anyone here successfully compiled their own version of e2fsprogs > that works over 16TB? > > Looking at https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto it says: > "The code to create file systems bigger than 16 TiB is, at the time of > writing this article, not in any stable release of e2fsprogs. It will > be in future releases." > > Not sure if the wiki is out of date or not... What I have seen is only a alpha/beta quality code that adds this functionality. I would not suggest that you use those patches. At least not on a production machine. I only wanted to mention that there is such code... not that it is actually working :) Marian > > Thanks! > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110623/e03e6939/attachment-0005.sig>