linux-ext4 - Re: Is EXT4 the right FS for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D0E3D80.4060607@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:14:40 -0500
From:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
	Sandon Van Ness <sandon@...-ness.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Alan Piszcz <ap@...arrain.com>
Subject: Re: Is EXT4 the right FS for > 16TB?

On 12/19/2010 12:01 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 12/19/10 10:53 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wow, there were no updates though after Eric's last comment..
>> Eric, have there been any improvements in the past 6 months?
>>
>> Or should one still steer clear from EXT4>  16TB?
> There is still no released e2fsprogs which supports>  16T for
> ext4, but testing of the not-released bits is welcomed...
> Ted says a 16T-capable version is coming soon.  There's still
> work to be done there, though.
>
> -Eric

I usually tend to point people towards XFS when you need something at greater 
than 16TB in size....

Good luck,

Ric

>> Justin.
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
>>
>>> Was it me (houkouonchi) on hard forum? I asked if>  16 TiB support was
>>> considered stable on here a while back:
>>>
>>> Is>16TB support considered stable?
>>>
>>> This was 6 months ago so maybe things have changed. The thread:
>>>
>>> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-ext4/2010/5/28/6884603/thread
>>>
>>> Luckily JFS fixed there userland utilities bug of not being able to
>>> handle>  32TiB very shortly after this and I ended up going that route
>>> and I have yet to have any data loss or problems on my JFS volume:
>>>
>>> root@...abutsu: 08:32 AM :~# df -H /data
>>> Filesystem             Size   Used  Avail Use% Mounted on
>>> /dev/sdd1               36T    22T    15T  61% /data
>>> root@...abutsu: 08:32 AM :~#
>>>
>>> At work with our hundreds/thousands of servers we will likely be going
>>> ext4 as we wont be using it on>16 TiB. I think its a huge improvement
>>> over ext3 but for my use JFS ended up being a better fit. I
>>> refuse/refused to go XFS.
>>>
>>> On 12/19/2010 03:52 AM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've read a lot of posts regarding people who setup RAID volumes of
>>>> and up to around 16TB and EXT4 is typically used.
>>>>
>>>> However, in various forums, people still ask what is the correct
>>>> filesystem for>  16TB?  I did read one post somewhere that stated the
>>>> ext4 developers did not recommend using ext4 for very large volumes,
>>>> is this still true?
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at creating a 43TB volume possibly in the near future and
>>>> I have used XFS in the past, which works well and would probably not
>>>> have any problem with it; however, I have bitten quite a number of
>>>> times by XFS bugs in the past several years, so I was curious, how
>>>> does EXT4 perform on larger volumes, e.g., 20TB?
>>>>
>>>> Are there any caveats / problems?
>>>>
>>>> Justin.
> --
> 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

--
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