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