From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0T6voQv022930 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:57:51 -0500 Received: from emailgate2.cpvie.co.at (mail.cpvie.co.at [195.234.151.28]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0T6vQnq024534 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:57:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (emailgate2.cp.com [127.0.0.1]) by emailgate2.cpvie.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEB340C46 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:57:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.10.55.2] (eisenkoe.cp.com [10.10.55.2]) by emailgate2.cpvie.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EC740ACA for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:57:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <479ECE89.9040506@cargo-partner.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:58:17 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_Eisenk=F6lbl?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM limits? References: <479DAD35.1080209@cesca.es> <479E2BEF.1090703@cesca.es> <1201541894.30560.24.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com> <479E698C.10204@cesca.es> In-Reply-To: <479E698C.10204@cesca.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Hi, do you also use a clustered-LVM in your storage system. i mean, two storages mirrored in a cluster (cmirror ?). kind regards Michael Jordi Prats schrieb: > Hi, > I'm the system administrator of PADICAT (http://www.padi.cat). It > collects Catalan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia) web sites to > provide permanent access to them (http://www.padi.cat/en/quees.php). > It's equivalent to Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org) but for a > particular culture. > > Our software developers require us to have one large file system, > actually a single directory, with all this historically-classified web > sites on a gziped file. > > I'm currently studying lustre and other HPC-related file systems to get > this large file system, but by now I have ext3 as our file system. Next > Monday I'm planning to extend it to 3TB o 4TB, so I'm currently > researching for restrictions because during next month I'll have between > 3TB to 4TB more to add: so, it will become a 8TB file system. > > Last time I fsck my 2'1TB file system I spend about 2 hours. Anyway, I'm > also curious about the maximums :P > > Thanks, > Jordi > > > Chris Cox wrote: > >> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 20:24 +0100, Jordi Prats wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> I found on a webpage this two sentences: >>> >>> - The combination of 32-bit CPU and Linux kernel version 2.6.x, the >>> limit of logical volume size is maximized at 16TB. >>> >>> - For Linux kernel 2.6.x running on 64-bit CPU, the maximum LV size is >>> 8EB (extremely terrible big storage for this time being!) >>> >>> Are they right? >>> >> Ok. But it's really impractical to have large multi-terabyte >> single filesystem today. What are you wanting to do? Ever fsck a >> 2TB filesystem? Consider yourself warned. >> >> Or... were you just curious about the maximums? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-lvm mailing list >> linux-lvm@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm >> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/ >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > linux-lvm mailing list > linux-lvm@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm > read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/ >