[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090718074811.GA2682@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:48:11 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to handle >16TB devices on 32 bit hosts ??
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:52:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> If you aren't running a 32-bit system with this config, you shouldn't
> really care. For those systems that need to run in this mode they
> would rather have it work a few percent slower instead of not at all.
Well, it doesn't work at all anyways due to the fsck problem.
> The last test numbers I saw were 5GB of RAM for a 20TB filesystem,
> but since the bitmaps used are fully-allocated arrays that isn't
> surprising. We are planning to replace this with a tree, since the
> majority of bitmaps used by e2fsck have large contiguous ranges of
> set or unset bits and can be represented much more efficiently.
You would need to get <~2.5GB for 32bit. In practice that's
the limit you have there.
> Also, for filesystems like btrfs or ZFS the checking can be done
> online and incrementally without storing a full representation of
> the state in memory.
You could, but I suspect it would be cheaper to just use a
64bit system than to rewrite fsck. 64bit is available
for a lot of embedded setups these days too.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists