Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*128TB\s+filesystem\s+limit\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*128TB\s+filesystem\s+limit\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: david@xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT); I'm working with a raid 0 (md) array on top of 10 16x1TB raid 6 hardware arrays. fdisk -l shows me 10 drives like WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sdk'! The util fdisk doesn't su; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00245.html (6,773 bytes)
2. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:54:33 +1100; What is in /proc/partitions? Probably. Unlikely to be an XFS limit - I was doing some "what happens if" testing on multi-PB sized XFS filesystems hosted on sparse files a couple of days ago.... Cheer; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00246.html (9,038 bytes)
3. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: david@xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:03:52 -0700 (PDT); fdisk -l shows me 10 drives like WARNING: GPT (GUID Partition Table) detected on '/dev/sdk'! The util fdisk doesn't support GPT. Use GNU Parted. Disk /dev/sdk: 13999.9 GB, 13999999025152 bytes 255 he; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00247.html (10,767 bytes)
4. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:35:11 +1100; .... .... Is there any reason for putting partitions on these block devices? You could just use the block devices without partitions, and that will avoid alignment potential problems.... 136718739840; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00248.html (9,897 bytes)
5. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: david@xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:02:31 -0700 (PDT); On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:15:42PM -0700, david@xxxxxxx wrote: I'm working with a raid 0 (md) array on top of 10 16x1TB raid 6 hardware arrays. .... I then did mkfs.xfs /dev/md0 but a df is showing; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00249.html (11,819 bytes)
6. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:35:28 -0500; ... I think you can.... it's not like MD is putting anything in the partition table; you just give it block devices, I doubt it cares if it's a whole disk or some partition. Worth a check anyway ;) .; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00250.html (9,161 bytes)
7. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: david@xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:56:41 -0700 (PDT); ... Is there any reason for putting partitions on these block devices? You could just use the block devices without partitions, and that will avoid alignment potential problems.... I would like to ra; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00251.html (10,536 bytes)
8. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:09:08 -0500; david@xxxxxxx put forth on 3/25/2010 11:56 PM: It would be helpful if you told us the primary application(s) that will be writing to this large multi-level RAID setup. Primarily large files or small?; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00252.html (9,697 bytes)
9. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Steve Costaras <stevecs@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:26:28 -0500; ... Is there any reason for putting partitions on these block devices? You could just use the block devices without partitions, and that will avoid alignment potential problems.... I would like to ra; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00253.html (11,972 bytes)
10. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:06:18 +0100; Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT) vous écriviez: This isn't an xfs limit, I've set up several hundred big xfs FS for more than 5 years (13 to 76 TB) and never saw that. It must be a bug in df; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00258.html (8,356 bytes)
11. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: Steve Costaras <stevecs@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:28:12 -0500; actually HAS a file system of X size to make a determination such as that. Having run into limits that 'should not have been there' at 1TB, 2TB, 8TB, 16TB, and 32TB when I've crossed each one (diffe; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00259.html (9,954 bytes)
12. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: david@xxxxxxx; Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:45:19 -0700 (PDT); Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT) vous ?criviez: is this just rounding error combined with the 1000=1k vs 1024=1k marketing stuff, or is there some limit I am bumping into here. This isn't an; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00260.html (8,917 bytes)
13. Re: 128TB filesystem limit? (score: 1): Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:17:03 +0100; A 128Tb single filesystem ontop a 160 drives RAID60! Even better, one made of 10x 14+2 RAID6 components. It shows a dedication to "if it is possible it must make sense" logic and an admirable faith; /archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00262.html (8,084 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]