On 10/5/11 12:54 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 09:58:59AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
right; for large ext4 fs use (or testing), try
# mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=1 /dev/blah
this will cause it to skip inode table initialization, and speed up
mkfs a LOT. It'll
On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
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
On 10/05/2011 04:01 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all.
the why rh do
On 10/4/11 6:53 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:19 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 10/03/2011 06:33 PM, 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:
testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?)
On 10/5/11 9:58 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/4/11 6:53 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
...
Note that ext4 has a new feature that allows inodes to be initialized in the
background, so you will see much quicker mkfs.ext4 times as well :)
right; for large ext4 fs use (or testing), try
#
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 09:58:59AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
right; for large ext4 fs use (or testing), try
# mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=1 /dev/blah
this will cause it to skip inode table initialization, and speed up
mkfs a LOT. It'll also keep sparse test images smaller.
IMHO this
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:42:37AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/5/11 9:58 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/4/11 6:53 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
...
Note that ext4 has a new feature that allows inodes to be initialized in
the
background, so you will see much quicker mkfs.ext4 times as
On 10/05/2011 05:42 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
right; for large ext4 fs use (or testing), try
# mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=1 /dev/blah
this will cause it to skip inode table initialization, and speed up mkfs a
LOT.
It'll also keep sparse test images smaller.
IMHO this should probably be
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 05:33:47PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/3/11 5:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
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
100T seems to work for light use.
I can create the filesystem, mount it, write files and directories and
read them back, and fsck doesn't report any problems.
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/vda199T 129M 94T 1% /sysroot
Linux (none)
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
On 10/04/2011 01:03 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Large filesystem support for ext4 has languished upstream for a very
long time, and few in the community seemed terribly interested to test it,
either.
why? that's what i simple do not understand!?...
--
Levente Si
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Farkas Levente lfar...@lfarkas.org 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,
On 10/04/2011 03:12 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/04/2011 01:03 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Large filesystem support for ext4 has languished upstream for a very
long time, and few in the community seemed terribly interested to test it,
either.
why? that's what i simple do not understand!?...
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
On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
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
On 10/03/2011 06:33 PM, 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:
testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be
interesting.
Here's my test script:
qemu-img create -f qcow2
On 10/04/2011 07:19 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 10/03/2011 06:33 PM, 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:
testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be
interesting.
Here's my
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:51:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Another little heads up - a newer snapshot is built in rawhide now.
Anyone who wants to fiddle with large ext4 filesystems, have at
it please!
Is there any background information to this change that I can read?
I created a 2**60
On 10/3/11 1:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:51:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Another little heads up - a newer snapshot is built in rawhide now.
Anyone who wants to fiddle with large ext4 filesystems, have at
it please!
Is there any background information to
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:10:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/3/11 1:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:51:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Another little heads up - a newer snapshot is built in rawhide now.
Anyone who wants to fiddle with large ext4
On 10/3/11 4:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:10:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/3/11 1:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:51:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Another little heads up - a newer snapshot is built in rawhide now.
Anyone
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
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:
testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be interesting.
Here's my test script:
qemu-img create -f qcow2 test1.img 500T \
guestfish -a test1.img \
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be interesting.
Here's my test script:
qemu-img create -f qcow2 test1.img 500T \
guestfish -a test1.img \
memsize 4096 : run : \
part-disk /dev/vda gpt
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.
On 8/9/11 8:15 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
... now, finally, with more 64-bit-ness!
From Ted:
I've made the first WIP release of e2fsprogs 1.42. The primary purpose
is for people to test the 64-bit functionality and be confident that we
didn't introduce any 32-bit regressions.
So in
On 08/09/2011 06:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I've made the first WIP release of e2fsprogs 1.42. The primary purpose
is for people to test the 64-bit functionality and be confident that we
didn't introduce any 32-bit regressions.
So in theory you can at least mfks mount a 16T fs and beyond, if
On 08/10/2011 07:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/09/2011 06:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I've made the first WIP release of e2fsprogs 1.42. The primary purpose
is for people to test the 64-bit functionality and be confident that we
didn't introduce any 32-bit regressions.
So in theory you
On 08/10/2011 07:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/09/2011 06:45 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I've made the first WIP release of e2fsprogs 1.42. The primary purpose
is for people to test the 64-bit functionality and be confident that we
didn't introduce any 32-bit regressions.
So in theory you
... now, finally, with more 64-bit-ness!
From Ted:
I've made the first WIP release of e2fsprogs 1.42. The primary purpose
is for people to test the 64-bit functionality and be confident that we
didn't introduce any 32-bit regressions.
So in theory you can at least mfks mount a 16T fs and
31 matches
Mail list logo
