[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?

To: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Anyone using XFS in production on > 20TiB volumes?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:03:13 -0600
Cc: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20101222175611.1c7d5190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1012221128440.5245@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101222175611.1c7d5190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
On 12/22/10 10:56 AM, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:30:05 -0500 (EST)
> Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait:
>> Is there anyone currently using this in production?
> Yup, lots of people do. Currently supporting 28 such systems (from 20
> to 76 TiB, most are 39.7 TiB).
>> How much ram is needed when you fsck with a many files on such a
>> volume? Dave Chinner reported 5.5g or so is needed for ~43TB with no
>> inodes. Any recent issues/bugs one needs to be aware of?
> I never had any trouble running xfs_repair on 39.7 TB+ systems with 8 GB
> of RAM.
>> Is inode64 recommended on a 64-bit system?
> Sure, however 32 bits clients may scoff sometimes, though it's limited
> to some weird programs.
>> Any specific 64-bit tweaks/etc for a large 43TiB FS?
> Nothing unusual (inode64,noatime, mkfs with lazy-count enabled, etc). It
> should just works.

yes, inode64 is recommended for such a large filesystem; lazy-count
has been default in mkfs for quite some time.  noatime if you really
need it, I guess.

See also


which mentions getting your geometry right if it's hardware raid
that can't be detected automatically.

(maybe we should add inode64 usecases to that too...)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>