Feasability of VERY large ext3 file system?
schmitt at inf.ethz.ch
Thu Dec 5 06:16:00 CST 2002
Eric Swenson wrote:
> 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).
Supporting 1TB per filesystem means: "is known to work". Being able to
mount a 2TB FS does not mean anything about if it will work or not once
you have data > 1TB on it. That's how I understand Arjan's statement.
Up to now, I've always split "big" storage space into chunks < 1TB,
simply to not run into some of those "border" issues and I had no
problems with that so far (using ext2 and ext3).
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge