Feasability of VERY large ext3 file system?

Eric Swenson eric at reaction-eng.com
Wed Dec 4 13:57:00 CST 2002


On Wednesday 04 December 2002 08:20 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:05:58PM -0000, Basil Hussain wrote:
> > * Would a single multi-TB file system using ext3 be pushing things a bit?
>
> any multi-TB filesystem is pushing things
> RHL 8.0 supports upto 1Tb per filesystem; 2Tb for certain theoretical
> setups (eg not involving raid or lvm)
>
> above that you need a 2.6.x kernel....

NOT true.  I'm setting up something very similar right now with a 
brand-spanking new Poweredge 4600, external 2TB u160 storage array, and 
Redhat 8.0.  I'm mounted it as both ext3 and reiserfs so far, and they can 
both use the full 2TB (minus a couple of small quorum partitions for using 
kimberlite or redhat AS clustering later).

BTW, has anyone here gone through the trouble of recompiling a redhat 8.0 
2.4.18-18 kernel with XFS, and if so, what version of XFS?  Can you share out 
stuff with NFS fine after that?

> > * The data stored would be organised in a directory hierarchy only one
> > level deep. How would ext3 cope with, say, 4000-5000 directories off the
> > file system's root?
>
> ext3 has a 32000 limit of subdirectories in a directory




More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list