On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > David R. Litwin wrote: > > >>4: ZFS has a HUGE capacity. I don't have 30 exobytes, but I might some > >>day.... > > > >ext4 will probably cope with that. XFS definitely has very high > >limits though I admit I don't know what they are. > > > >XFS is also a few exobytes. > > The fsck for none of these filesystems will be able to deal with > a filesystem that big. Unless, of course, you have a few weeks > to wait for fsck to complete.
Which is why I want to be able to partially offline a chunk of a filesystem and repair it while the rest is still online..... > Backup and restore are similar problems. When part of the filesystem > is lost, you don't want to have to wait for a full restore. > > Sounds simple? Well, the hard part is figuring out exactly which > part of the filesystem you need to restore... > > I don't see ZFS, ext4 or XFS addressing these issues. XFS has these sorts of issues directly in our cross-hairs. The major scaling problem XFS has right now is to do with how long repair/backup/restore take when you have hundreds of terabytes of storage. > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach. Agreed, that's one method of compartmentalising the problem..... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
