we have not test 7TB ost partition with lustre, but with ext3, it's not stable, sometimes the fs turn to readonly during writing, sometimes fsck error and then some inode is cleared.
2007/6/19, Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Jun 19, 2007 13:57 +0800, swin wang wrote: > In out project, we want to use large ost partition, but in our test, > ext3 is not stable for large partion(7TB), but ext2 was ok. We haven't had any reports of similar problems. There are many production systems with 4TB OSTs that do not have problems. There are no filesystem limitations I'm aware of between 4TB and 7TB that should cause problems. At 8TB there are known issues with signedness of 32-bit values that have not yet been fixed in the vendor kernels we use. > so we want use ext2 as ost's fs, can we? No, this is not possible. Every crash of OSS node would take 3-5h for e2fsck to run, and multi-file updates done by Lustre would be inconsistent because journal is not there to ensure atomic updates in this case. There is also no mballoc+extents patch for ext2, so performance would be worse than for ext3. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
