[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F65F80.7050202@bull.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:23:28 +0100
From: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Cc: Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists