On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ <pauljerome@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov <mm@xxxxxxxx> 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Not sure if the wiki is out of date or not...
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
