On 10/05/2011 01:19 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 10/03/2011 06:33 PM, 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: >>>> testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be interesting. >>> >>> Here's my test script: >>> >>> qemu-img create -f qcow2 test1.img 500T&& \ >>> guestfish -a test1.img \ >>> memsize 4096 : run : \ >>> part-disk /dev/vda gpt : mkfs ext4 /dev/vda1 > ... >>> >>> 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 not btrfs? I am testing a 24TB physical server and ext4 creation > took forever while btrfs was almost instant. I understand it's still > experimental (I hear storing virtual disk images on btrfs still has > unresolved performance problems) but vm disk storage should be fine. > FWIW I have been using btrfs as my /home at home for some time now; > so far so good. imho if the bfrts maintainer said it's not ready for prime time then it's not ready for production use. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
