On 10/4/11 2:09 AM, Farkas Levente wrote: > On 10/04/2011 01:03 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 10/3/11 5:53 PM, Farkas Levente wrote: >>> On 10/04/2011 12:33 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 10/3/11 5:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> I wasn't able to give the VM enough memory to make this succeed. I've >>>>> only got 8G on this laptop. Should I need large amounts of memory to >>>>> create these filesystems? >>>>> >>>>> At 100T it doesn't run out of memory, but the man behind the curtain >>>>> starts to show. The underlying qcow2 file grows to several gigs and I >>>>> had to kill it. I need to play with the lazy init features of ext4. >>>>> >>>>> Rich. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Bleah. Care to use xfs? ;) >>> >>> why we've to use xfs? really? nobody really use large fs on linux? or >>> nobody really use rhel? why not the e2fsprogs has too much upstream >>> support? with 2-3TB disk the 16TB fs limit is really funny...or not so >>> funny:-( >> >> XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all. > > the why rh do NOT support it in 32 bit? there're still system that > should have to run on 32 bit:-( 32-bit machines have a 32-bit index into the page cache; on x86, that limits us to 16T for XFS, as well. So 32-bit is really not that interesting for large filesystem use. If you need really scalable filesystems, I'd suggest a 64-bit machine. -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
