Heads up: e2fsprogs-1.42-WIP-0702 pushed to rawhide

[Eric Sandeen]

On 10/4/11 2:09 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 01:03 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 10/3/11 5:53 PM, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2011 12:33 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/11 5:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>> I wasn't able to give the VM enough memory to make this succeed.  I've
>>>>> only got 8G on this laptop.  Should I need large amounts of memory to
>>>>> create these filesystems?
>>>>>
>>>>> At 100T it doesn't run out of memory, but the man behind the curtain
>>>>> starts to show.  The underlying qcow2 file grows to several gigs and I
>>>>> had to kill it.  I need to play with the lazy init features of ext4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bleah.  Care to use xfs? ;)
>>>
>>> why we've to use xfs? really? nobody really use large fs on linux? or
>>> nobody really use rhel? why not the e2fsprogs has too much upstream
>>> support? with 2-3TB disk the 16TB fs limit is really funny...or not so
>>> funny:-(
>>
>> XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all.
> 
> the why rh do NOT support it in 32 bit? there're still system that
> should have to run on 32 bit:-(

32-bit machines have a 32-bit index into the page cache; on x86, that limits
us to 16T for XFS, as well.  So 32-bit is really not that interesting for
large filesystem use.

If you need really scalable filesystems, I'd suggest a 64-bit machine.

-Eric