FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > EXT3 Users

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-11-2010, 01:33 PM
Mag Gam
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

We need to create very large filesystems. We prefer to have a
filesystem which is 12TB but it seems ext3 does not suppor that.

Everytime, we do mkfs.ext3 on a 12TB LV we get

mke2fs: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks

(8TB using a blocksize of 4K) are currently supported.


We can override that by doing,

mkfs.ext3 -b 8192

But what is the downside for doing this? By using a larger blocksize
what are the consequences?

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-11-2010, 01:51 PM
Eric Sandeen
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

Mag Gam wrote:
> We need to create very large filesystems. We prefer to have a
> filesystem which is 12TB but it seems ext3 does not suppor that.

Most recent ext3 kernelspace and userspace should technically
make it to 16T.

> Everytime, we do mkfs.ext3 on a 12TB LV we get
>
> mke2fs: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks
>
> (8TB using a blocksize of 4K) are currently supported.

Newer e2fsprogs should have lifted this restriction.
Note however that a filesystem this large will probably be almost
impossible - at least very slow - to run fsck on.

>
> We can override that by doing,
>
> mkfs.ext3 -b 8192
>
> But what is the downside for doing this? By using a larger blocksize
> what are the consequences?

The downside is you probably can't mount it, because it's
block size > page size on most architectures (like x86 and x86_64)

-Eric

> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-11-2010, 11:26 PM
Bodo Thiesen
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

* Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> hat geschrieben:

> Mag Gam wrote:
>> We need to create very large filesystems. We prefer to have a
>> filesystem which is 12TB but it seems ext3 does not suppor that.
> Most recent ext3 kernelspace and userspace should technically
> make it to 16T.

[...]

> The downside is you probably can't mount it, because it's
> block size > page size on most architectures (like x86 and x86_64)

Contradiction? Anyone?

@Mag Gam: In other words: No, you can't, sorry.

However, in dependence of what you *really* need, you could create two or
more file systems of lower size and mount some in places, where many files
are stored. Yes, I know, that this is sub-optimal - but better take a
sub-optimal solution than no solution

Regards, Bodo

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-12-2010, 01:42 AM
Mag Gam
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

Thanks.

Basically, I should avoid creating such a large filesystems.




On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Bodo Thiesen <bothie@gmx.de> wrote:
> * Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> hat geschrieben:
>
>> Mag Gam wrote:
>>> We need to create very large filesystems. We prefer to have a
>>> filesystem which is 12TB but it seems ext3 does not suppor that.
>> Most recent ext3 kernelspace and userspace should technically
>> make it to 16T.
>
> [...]
>
>> The downside is you probably can't mount it, because it's
>> block size > page size on most architectures (like x86 and x86_64)
>
> Contradiction? Anyone?
>
> @Mag Gam: In other words: No, you can't, sorry.
>
> However, in dependence of what you *really* need, you could create two or
> more file systems of lower size and mount some in places, where many files
> are stored. Yes, I know, that this is sub-optimal - but better take a
> sub-optimal solution than no solution
>
> Regards, Bodo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
>

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-12-2010, 01:57 AM
Eric Sandeen
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

Mag Gam wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Basically, I should avoid creating such a large filesystems.

... on ext3. Other filesystems can handle this better; ext4 should
be quite useable up to 16T, others can go larger still.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-12-2010, 02:31 AM
Stephen Samuel
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

It seems to me that Mag is running a somewhat older system. That would explain the problems
with expanding ext3 past 8TB.* Perhaps this would be a good excuse to plan an upgrade to the OS, and maybe also the hardware.


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:

Mag Gam wrote:

> Thanks.

>

> Basically, I should avoid creating such a large filesystems.



... on ext3. *Other filesystems can handle this better; ext4 should

be quite useable up to 16T, others can go larger still.



-Eric



_______________________________________________

Ext3-users mailing list

Ext3-users@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users



--
Stephen Samuel http://www.bcgreen.com *Software, like love,
778-861-7641 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *grows when you give it away


_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-12-2010, 02:43 AM
Mag Gam
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

Running centos 5.2 on Intel Xeon .

Any advice?

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Samuel <samuel@bcgreen.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that Mag is running a somewhat older system. That would
> explain the problems
> with expanding ext3 past 8TB.* Perhaps this would be a good excuse to plan
> an upgrade to the OS, and maybe also the hardware.
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mag Gam wrote:
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Basically, I should avoid creating such a large filesystems.
>>
>> ... on ext3. *Other filesystems can handle this better; ext4 should
>> be quite useable up to 16T, others can go larger still.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ext3-users mailing list
>> Ext3-users@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen Samuel http://www.bcgreen.com *Software, like love,
> 778-861-7641 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *grows when you give it away
>

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-13-2010, 12:49 AM
Christian Kujau
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

On Tue, 11 May 2010 at 22:43, Mag Gam wrote:
> Running centos 5.2 on Intel Xeon .

So, this would be Linux 2.6.18 (plus various patches, I suppose). Ext4
won't run there (or did CentOS backport ext4?). 16TB should be possible
with ext3 (and 4KB blocksize), upgrading e2fsprogs would seem the easiest
step to begin with.

Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #54:

Evil dogs hypnotised the night shift

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-13-2010, 07:40 AM
Stephen Samuel
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

Your core problem, as I see it, is that you're running at the boundary of what ext3
is capable of, in any event.* This means that, even if you do manage to get it
working you're going to be running into other boundary related conditions (like your

first fsck taking longer than an upgrade would have, the inability to expand the
filesystem much past it's current size, and god-only knows what else.

In other words, if you need to stay with the current version of centos for other

reasons, then continue on this path, otherwise, an upgrade is likely to make life
easier in the long run.

... and if you can swing an upgrade to 64 bit, you may avoid other side effects of
working with a filesystem this large.



On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Mag Gam <magawake@gmail.com> wrote:

Running centos 5.2 on Intel Xeon .



Any advice?



On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Samuel <samuel@bcgreen.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that Mag is running a somewhat older system. That would

> explain the problems

> with expanding ext3 past 8TB.* Perhaps this would be a good excuse to plan

> an upgrade to the OS, and maybe also the hardware.

>

> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:

>>

>> Mag Gam wrote:

>> > Thanks.

>> >

>> > Basically, I should avoid creating such a large filesystems.

>>

>> ... on ext3. *Other filesystems can handle this better; ext4 should

>> be quite useable up to 16T, others can go larger still.

>>
--
Stephen Samuel http://www.bcgreen.com *Software, like love,
778-861-7641 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *grows when you give it away


_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 05-13-2010, 03:13 PM
Russell Gillette
 
Default 2**31-1 blocks question

On 5/11/10 7:26 PM, Bodo Thiesen wrote:

* Eric Sandeen<sandeen@redhat.com> hat geschrieben:


> Mag Gam wrote:

>> We need to create very large filesystems. We prefer to have a
>> filesystem which is 12TB but it seems ext3 does not suppor that.

> Most recent ext3 kernelspace and userspace should technically
> make it to 16T.

[...]


> The downside is you probably can't mount it, because it's
> block size> page size on most architectures (like x86 and x86_64)

Contradiction? Anyone?


Eric's comment about not being able to mount referenced altering the FS
block size to 8k from 4k. Intel Xeon only supports 4k pages.


He is correct that newer e2fsprogs will allow creation of ext3
filesystems up to 16T _without_ altering block size, as I frequently
make 10T+ filesystems on RHEL 5.3 and 5.4.


--russellg

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org