On Oct 10, 2007 09:40 -0600, Lundgren, Andrew wrote: > As RH 5.1 will support 16TB ext3 partitions, will lustre inherit that > functionality?
We haven't looked at this yet. The ldiskfs code is ext3 + patches, so there is some chance that it will work (more likely on 64-bit platforms), but we haven't audited the ldiskfs patches to check if they are 32-bit clean. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Andreas Dilger > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:26 AM > > To: Aaron Knister > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] Hardware Question > > > > On Oct 06, 2007 10:28 -0400, Aaron Knister wrote: > > > Oh, right I forgot about that. Well...if i had an 8tb lun > > and split it > > > into 2 volume groups using LVM do you think the performance > > would be > > > worse than making 2 raids at the hardware level? > > > > Well, it won't be doing the disks any favours, since you'll > > now have contention between the OSTs, and the kernel will be > > doing a poor job with the IO elevator decisions. I would > > suggest making 2 smaller RAID LUNs instead. > > > > In the end it is up to you to decide if the IO performance is > > acceptable. > > You can do some testing using lustre-iokit to see what the > > component device performance is. > > > > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > > > > >On Oct 05, 2007 13:14 -0400, Aaron Knister wrote: > > > >>Make that 6x 9.7TB luns. > > > > > > > >Lustre (== ext3) doesn't support >= 8TB LUNs. 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
