| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <5B254D74-114B-4126-91BE-1DECBC029AD8@dilger.ca> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:56:24 -0600 From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: filesystems bigger than 16 TB? On 2011-06-23, at 5:35 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > With mkfs.ext4 from 1.41.14, it is not possible to create a filesystem which is bigger than 16 TB: > > mkfs.ext4: Size of device /dev/sdb too big to be expressed in 32 bits > using a blocksize of 4096. > > But I see it succeeds with the latest git version of e2fsprogs. > > > > The question is: how reliable such a filesystem is? > > On a system which is supposed to be reliable, perhaps I'll be better off with xfs for such large filesystems? > > I'm using Debian Squeeze, which has a 2.6.32 kernel. We are starting to use filesystems over 16TB, so far without problems. Kernel is either RHEL5.4 (2.6.18), or RHEL6.1 (2.6.32), with e2fsprogs from git (based on 7d9e31655fca48e9d6c2647ad443124113508b73). We've tested up to 24TB quite a bit, and recently started testing a 128TB filesystem and haven't run into any problems. Beyond 128TB there are some memory allocation issues that prevent the filesystem from mounting, but aren't critical to be fixed quite yet... Cheers, Andreas -- 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