Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007 16:22 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Mingming Cao wrote:
IBM has done some testing (dbench, fsstress, fsx, tiobench, iozone etc)
on 10TB ext3, I think RedHat and BULL have done similar test on >8TB
ext3 too.
Is there not a problem of backward-compatibility with old kernels?
Doesn't we need to handle a new INCOMPAT flag in e2fsprogs and kernel
before allowing ext3 filesystems greater than 8T?
No, it really depends on the kernel. There were some bugs that caused
problems with > 8TB because of signed 32-bit int problems, so it isn't
really recommended to use > 8TB unless you know this is fixed in your
kernel (and any older kernel you might have to downgrade to).
OK. Thanks.
As Andre mentions it, it seems that the option "-F" for mkfs is
necessary to create an ext3 FS > 8T.
(I've got the same behavior but I didn't apply the latest patches
against my current version of e2fsprogs, so I can't check if that has
changed since).
Is it the right way?
Valérie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
