On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:12:51PM -0500, Paul Paulson wrote: > We'd like to run the full test suite using maximum partition sizes on > SMR drives for functional and performance evaluation purposes. Since > drive capacities are increasing so rapidly it would be nice if mke2fs > would support filesystems up to the maximum configurations specified > in the Ext4_Disk_Layout document using default filesystem configs. For > example, the 127877120 inode limit that we ran into is only 3% of the > number of inodes specified in the document (2^32 inodes in a 4 TiB > filesystem with 1KiB block sizes for 32-bit mode). Sure, but the default file system configs don't include 1k block sizes. There really is only one reason that I care about the 1k block size --- it's to make it easy to validate on an x86 architecture what happens when a file system with a default 4k block size is mounted on an architectures such as PowerPC or Itanium which has a page size of 16k or 64k. That is, to test the case where block size < page size. But we really don't encourage people use a 1k block size in production. And while it would make sense from a performance point of view to use a 16k or 64k block size file system on a PowerPC or Itanium system, people who care about making their file system portable across PowerPC and x86 (for example) will need to use a 4k block file system (since Linux doesn't support block size > page size). So using a 1k block file system on a terabyte file system is neither the default nor a sane thing to do. I'll look into making mke2fs handle this case more smoothly, but it's not something that I consider a high priority or something I would encourage as a realstic production use case. Cheers, - Ted -- 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
