hosted by liquidweb


Go Back   Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : 16TB limit GPT partition with EXT4?
Reply

Forum Jump

16TB limit GPT partition with EXT4?

Reply Post New Thread In Colocation and Data Centers Subscription
 
Send news tip View All Posts Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-08-2011, 10:14 PM
cwl@apaqdigital cwl@apaqdigital is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,764

16TB limit GPT partition with EXT4?


trying to partition 16x 3TB RAID-10 (24TB array volume) with with EXT4 file system comes with CentOS 6.0 here. is it true that even with GPT, EXT4 has a 16TB limit?

a quick googling tells that EXT4 supporting files are still 32-bit, so even with x86_64 CentOS6/RHEL6 distro's, the EXT4 file system is still limited to 32-bit, therefore "16TB limit" applies.

can any linux OS expert here confirm this? is any way around this limit?

__________________
C.W. LEE, Apaq Digital Systems
http://www.apaqdigital.com
sales@apaqdigital.com



Last edited by cwl@apaqdigital; 09-08-2011 at 10:20 PM.


Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 09-08-2011, 10:42 PM
techjr techjr is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,465
Although I cant confirm it... From my understanding there are two different limitations that people are saying, a 16TB file size limit with EXT4 but a 1ExaByte volume size limit or a 16tb partition limit.


Sorry I can't be of much help but wouldn't xfs be better suited for such a large partition?

  #3  
Old 09-08-2011, 10:48 PM
silasmoeckel silasmoeckel is offline
Web Hosting Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 481
That's correct they are planning on changing it but that's the current limit. XFS is a nice mature FS that deals with large partitions well, just do not use it on a 32 bit os.

Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 09-08-2011, 11:25 PM
MikeDVB MikeDVB is offline
Web Host Extraordinaire!!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana USA
Posts: 14,869
XFS is good for large partitions that handle large files, but not so much for large partitions with a LOT of small files. It would largely depend on what you're going to do with the storage.

__________________
Michael Denney - MDDHosting, LLC - Professional Hosting Solutions
LiteSpeed Powered - Shared, Reseller, Semi-Dedicated, and VPS
For high-end shared accounts ideal for business, check out our Semi-Dedicated offerings!
http://www.mddhosting.com/ - Providing Quality Services since 2007

  #5  
Old 09-08-2011, 11:37 PM
techjr techjr is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
XFS is good for large partitions that handle large files, but not so much for large partitions with a LOT of small files. It would largely depend on what you're going to do with the storage.
True, I should have mentioned that. I have seen larger XFS partitions used for full server images and backups work just fine but I shouldn't make file system suggestions without knowing the use.

  #6  
Old 09-09-2011, 01:02 AM
DMEHosting DMEHosting is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1,170
ext4 is limited to 16TB in partition size because of e2fsprogs. Although I hear there is a new e4fsprogs, but it still wont allow anything greater than 16TB because of that e2fsprogs. I hear there is a work around, but it would be by using the beta release of e2fsprogs. I would only use XFS if you don't need to increase/decrease the size later on.

__________________
www.DMEHosting.com - DME Hosting LLC | Servers, KVM/OpenVZ VPS's, Email Hosting, Web Hosting


  #7  
Old 09-09-2011, 07:53 AM
houkouonchi houkouonchi is offline
Web Hosting Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 531
As others have said there is no fsck (and other important stuff) for 64-bit based ext4 which is needed for > 16TiB support.

I am very aware of this issue. The *only* two native/mature linux file-systems which support > 16TiB support are JFS and XFS.

I don't consider btrfs as its not considered stable nor do I consider ZFS as its not really native linux.

I personally use JFS on my system:

Code:
root@dekabutsu: 04:37 AM :~# df -H
Filesystem             Size   Used  Avail Use% Mounted on
rootfs                 129G    90G    40G  70% /
/dev/root              129G    90G    40G  70% /
udev                    11M   238k    11M   3% /dev
/dev/sda1              129G    78G    52G  61% /winxp
/dev/sdd1               36T    29T   7.5T  80% /data
/dev/sde1               84T    23G    84T   1% /data2
tmpfs                   13G      0    13G   0% /dev/shm
root@dekabutsu: 04:37 AM :~#
The reasons I don't use XFS:

*Has a reputation for losing data during a power interruption (and I personally have had this happen).

*I have heard it requires 1 GB of ram for the fsck for each TB of data.

*Lots of bugs back when I used it (kernel panic when to fragmented, accessing a specific file,etc..)

*Relatively slow fsck times (atleast from what I have experienced).

Now some of the issues have been from previous experience from atleast 4 years ago I am sure in multiple aspects its better now but needless to say I don't really trust XFS with my data anymore.

The reasons I use JFS:

*hardly any memory usage for fsck.

*fsck is very fast (much faster than ext3). It takes around 12-13 minutes for my 36 TB volume to fsck. This is mainly dependent on what the inode usage/number of files/directories on the file-system). In my case this is 6 million as i store very large media files.

*Very fast. Just like XFS it gives near raw disk I/O performance. XFS might be just slightly faster on this front.

*Low CPU usage. Uses less CPU usage than any other file-system AFAIK.

*I have been running JFS for many years now on very large file-systems. I have yet to have data loss when the file-system was not unmounted cleanly due to powerloss, kernel panic, or any other options.


So your only real choices are pretty much between those two (IMHO).

  #8  
Old 09-12-2011, 12:58 PM
cwl@apaqdigital cwl@apaqdigital is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by houkouonchi View Post
As others have said there is no fsck (and other important stuff) for 64-bit based ext4 which is needed for > 16TiB support.

I am very aware of this issue. The *only* two native/mature linux file-systems which support > 16TiB support are JFS and XFS.

I don't consider btrfs as its not considered stable nor do I consider ZFS as its not really native linux.

I personally use JFS on my system:...
my client is convinced to use JFS for the single 24TB volume. however, JFS is not native to CentOS/RHEL6, and googling isn't yielding much info about how to install JFS on CentOS6...

array configuration:
16x Seagate 3TB consetellation ES2 RAID-10 on 3ware 9750-4i with SAS expansion backplane

partition scheme:
x86_64 centOS 6
1GB (/dev/sba1) carved from 24TB array in 3ware BIOS for "/boot" (EXT4)
~24TB (/dev/sdb) is veried by 3ware already to be OK
usual small partitions for swap, root, /tmp (all EXT4)
the rest to be one big "/home" by JFS

will you OS experts out there please post a brief guide of how to do this?

__________________
C.W. LEE, Apaq Digital Systems
http://www.apaqdigital.com
sales@apaqdigital.com


  #9  
Old 09-12-2011, 01:03 PM
FastServ FastServ is offline
Randy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
Posts: 4,288
Convince your client to use an OS with (real) JFS support like Debian or Ubuntu. With ancient CentOS you'll either be rolling the kernel and tools from scratch or relying on a 'testing/plus' repo.

It's old but see here:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ce...er/065822.html

CentOS support for JFS is beta/unsupported/buggy at best.

__________________
Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | Fully Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters


  #10  
Old 09-12-2011, 01:15 PM
skullbox skullbox is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,055
How about GFS or OCFS? Not sure what the limits are there, but they are considered high performance file systems.

__________________
-=SKULLBOX.NET=-

  #11  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:16 PM
silasmoeckel silasmoeckel is offline
Web Hosting Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 481
GFS2 Is supported though at least 25TB and 8EB as it's max size. Some additional overhead running a clustered FS for sure. XFS under linux has come a long way over the years. In any event hacking redhat/centos to get JFS working will probably be a long term nightmare.

  #12  
Old 09-13-2011, 09:54 AM
houkouonchi houkouonchi is offline
Web Hosting Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 531
centOS has really old kernels that they just backport **** to (atleast this is what used to be the case). I would want atleast a 2.6.24 kernel for JFS. Also you would need the newest jfsutils to properly create over 32 TiB:

http://jfs.sourceforge.net/

I think if the fsck.jfs link is created which make install should do then the file-system should properly fsck at boot even on a distro that wasn't specifically designed around JFS but maybe not if they are being lame?

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VPS for a GPT/PTC site SorinK84 VPS Hosting 4 06-06-2011 04:36 PM
looking for money/ptc/gpt related links pr2+ eazyhost Advertising Requests 0 02-13-2009 11:49 PM
GPT Site For Sale - LuxeLoot.com NotoriousKIM Domain Name with Web Site Offers 0 10-14-2007 09:51 PM
Review: GPT Site - Betlik.com FarooqAzam Web Site Reviews 4 12-10-2006 04:43 PM

Related posts from TheWhir.com
Title Type Date Posted
CloudLinux Releases New Inode Limits Feature for cPanel Web Hosting News 2013-08-28 16:38:27
Box Doubles Storage for Free Plan, Launches $5 Enterprise Plan Web Hosting News 2013-08-22 13:32:27
HostingCon - My Money Trail Blog 2013-06-12 15:37:11
New Internet Censorship Law in Russia Requires Web Hosts, ISPs to Block Illegal Websites Web Hosting News 2012-11-12 12:06:43
CloudBerry Launches Version 2.9 of Cloud Backup for Amazon S3, Azure Web Hosting News 2012-06-25 16:38:04


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Postbit Selector

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump
Login:
Log in with your username and password
Username:
Password:



Forgot Password?
Advertisement:
Web Hosting News:



 

X

Welcome to WebHostingTalk.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

WebHostingTalk.com is the largest, most influentual web hosting community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.


(4 digit year)

Already a member?