On 12:05, Mingming Cao wrote: > > > BTW: Are ext3 filesystem sizes greater than 8T now officially > > > supported? > > > > I think so, but I don't know how much 16TB testing developers and > > distros are doing - perhaps the linux-ext4 denizens can tell us? > > - > > 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. Thanks. I'm asking because some days ago I tried to create a 10T ext3 filesytem on a linear software raid over two hardware raids, and it failed horribly. mke2fs from e2fsprogs-1.39 refused to create such a large filesystem but did it with -F, and I could mount it afterwards. But writing data immediately produced zillions of errors and only power-cycling the box helped. We're now using a 7.9T filesystem on the same hardware. That seems to work fine on 2.6.21-rc2, so I think this is an ext3 problem. I cannot completely rule out other reasons though as the underlying qla2xxx driver also had some problems on earlier kernels. We'd much rather have a 10T filesystem if possible. So if you have time to look into the issue I would be willing to recreate the 10T filesystem and send details. Regards Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
