From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hbngr-0005Rs-8N for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:01:33 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3C0xPId010979; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:59:25 GMT Received: from moa.ifa.hawaii.edu (moa.IfA.Hawaii.Edu [128.171.168.48]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3C0xNMm010974 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:59:24 GMT Received: by moa.ifa.hawaii.edu (Postfix, from userid 1041) id 830C3B3E1C; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:04:13 -1000 (HST) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:04:13 -1000 From: Joshua Hoblitt To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Cc: tytso@thunk.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] trouble creating an ext3 filesystem > 8TB Message-ID: <20070412010413.GG10955@ifa.hawaii.edu> References: <20070410000909.GB7309@ifa.hawaii.edu> <20070410001243.GC7309@ifa.hawaii.edu> <20070410211253.GA24125@ifa.hawaii.edu> <7a329d910704110206q74e971a3k8e23fcdb9b38d25@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SxgehGEc6vB0cZwN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7a329d910704110206q74e971a3k8e23fcdb9b38d25@mail.gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 70ddaf28-aaab-4c98-998d-83e38f1853cb X-Archives-Hash: 88ab87bf55ca18132c51bc4cc183e756 --SxgehGEc6vB0cZwN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:06:44AM -0700, Wil Reichert wrote: > On 4/10/07, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > >After looking through various patches that were posted to LKML, I > >discovered that passing "-F" to mke2fs seems to make this work as > >expected. However, this behavior seems to be undocumented and that > >makes me more then a little nervous. > > > >The resulting filesystem does seem to be mountable: > > > > /dev/sda4 11T 173M 11T 1% /export/ipp003.0 > > > >Is this feature undocumented for a reason or is it just unsupported? >=20 > Any reason you are so set on ext3? Its fine for a general purpose fs > but this might be a sign you are stretching its intended limits. > Perhaps something 64-bit like xfs or jfs would be a better option > depending on your intended usage / workload. Yes, ext3 has proven itself, to my satisfaction, to be extremely reliable even if it's not mounted with the journal in ordered mode. In fact, I've never lost data from an ext3 filesystem that wasn't the fault of the hardware (disk/controller failure). I've dabbled with xfs and had some issues -- I've spoken with people that have had data corrupt issues with xfs when the system has exhausted memory. For my usage pattern, xfs only gives me about a 10% performance boost and frankly I don't need the extra bandwidth. I don't really have any experience with jfs. At least to me, ext3 is clearly the most stable choice. Even lustrefs uses ext3 as the storage backend because of it's stability. -J -- --SxgehGEc6vB0cZwN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGHYWNWa2BU+b7tU0RAu8FAJ4rm97u5TI0d50m33ULjev3iUS22QCfXDa3 EX7gjgK6/L+ilWQg85ZGLbo= =CXxz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SxgehGEc6vB0cZwN-- -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list