Re: raid50 and 9TB volumes

To:	"David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: raid50 and 9TB volumes
From:	Raz <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:20:56 +0300
Cc:	linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JWplrwHnRlJcICuhaljd6M3xtOTNU9e5/W5ulwctRp/f6o+F1jm6cSUw8ljJM8DuwE4Xq873dzkbPt6LhlmATQ+p/af6j51euAFNg/gLfIZSmwa2zerp3Yf7k5rYWzWvIjhGu8rXZwZFiOyqNcS3Gm1BVT+6X4oLkjfetps9EPA=
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=k9B0+iv8ejFPm8+RBSBrm9iSC7dO/wKcqK4fxqTepIiaD1TL4oXZb4nsdyefR2HyAHGcNVHVL4O1niRbYiNgFmEQZ+vTr4VhL2MqrcS0t/btYQOXmNfWFt3kMCvJRBR/V5Bu7k0ky6oK7AMmQXL/0p64Bn4qtgBri6yo2kGNy1Q=
In-reply-to:	<20070724010105.GN31489@sgi.com>
References:	<5d96567b0707160542t2144c382mbfe3da92f0990694@mail.gmail.com> <20070716130140.GC31489@sgi.com> <5d96567b0707160653m5951fac9v5a56bb4c92174d63@mail.gmail.com> <20070716221831.GE31489@sgi.com> <18076.1449.138328.66699@notabene.brown> <20070717001205.GI31489@sgi.com> <18076.4940.845633.149160@notabene.brown> <20070717005854.GL31489@sgi.com> <5d96567b0707222309y61480271xa8220a0b179764e0@mail.gmail.com> <20070724010105.GN31489@sgi.com>
Sender:	xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On 7/24/07, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:09:03AM +0300, Raz wrote:
> > My QA to re-installed the system. same kernel, different results. now,
> > /proc/paritions
> > reports :
> >   9     1 5114281984 md1
> >   9     2 5128001536 md2
> >   9     3 10242281472 md3
> >
> > blockdev --getsize64 /dev/md3
> > 10488096227328
> >
> > but xfs keeps on crashing. when formatting it ot 6.3 TB we're OK. when
> > letting xfs's mkfs choose the
>
> So at 6.3TB everything is ok. At what point does it start having
> problems? 6.4TB, 6.8TB, 8TB, 9TB?
over 8 TB. we checked several times. in 8.5 it crashes.
> I know Neil pointed out that you shouldn't have 10TB but closer to
> 7TB - is this true?
the drives are of 750 GB each.
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> Principal Engineer
> SGI Australian Software Group
>


-- 
Raz

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: raid50 and 9TB volumes, Raz <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from notify_change into helper function, Trond Myklebust
Next by Date:	many subdirectories, slow search., Arkadiy Kulev
Previous by Thread:	[PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individual setattr functions, Jeff Layton
Next by Thread:	many subdirectories, slow search., Arkadiy Kulev
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]