>16tb filesystems on linux

Bond Masuda bond.masuda at jlbond.com
Thu Aug 26 13:18:49 CDT 2010


In what scenarios did you experience poor performance with XFS? In our
environment, running a farm of massive file servers, XFS has always
outperformed ext3 by a large margin. Even the performance comparisons of
ext4 that I've seen mostly conclude it was about the same level as XFS
if not a little lacking in a few scenarios. We did a pretty extensive
benchmarking / performance test for our environment comparing ext3, jfs,
xfs, reiserfs, and concluded that XFS was the best for our needs. JFS
was a close 2nd, but it didn't handle multiple parallel I/O streams very
well.

Your statement about XFS comes as a surprise to me...

On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 10:26 -0700, Nick Stephens wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I recently purchased a PE610 with a PERC6 card attached to an MD1000 
> with about 26TB of space.  I know from my own research that ext4 
> supports up to an exabyte, however it appears that the e2fs team has not 
> yet created a mkfs.ext4 that supports anything bigger than 16TB.
> 
> I have played with XFS in the past, and sadly it's performance is 
> severely lacking for our environment, so it is not an option.
> 
> I am very interested in ZFS, but it seems like it will never make it (in 
> a stable fashion) into the linux world at this rate.
> 
> Does anyone have any tips or tricks for this scenario?  I am utilizing 
> RHEL5 based installations, btw.
> 
> Thanks!
> Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
> Linux-PowerEdge at dell.com
> https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge
> Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq




More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list