Re: Is >16TB support considered stable?

[Sandon Van Ness <sandon@van-ness.com>]

On 05/28/2010 09:32 PM, Stewart Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:47:41 -0700, Sandon Van Ness <sandon@van-ness.com> wrote:
>   
>> able to allocate blocks or memory (it was a while back so I forget). I
>> spent 24 hours defraging it getting the fragmentation down from like
>> 99.9995% to 99.2% and the problem went away. XFS seems to excessively
>> fragment (that horribly fragmented system was running mythtv and after
>> switching to JFS I see way less fragmented files).
>>     
> MythTV's IO path is well... hacked to get around all of ext3's quirks.
>
> You can:
> - mount XFS with allocsize=64m (or similar)
> - possibly use the XFS filestreams allocator
> - comment out the fsync() in the mythtv tree
> - LD_PRELOAD libeatmydata for myth.
>
> it turns out that writing a rather small amount of data and fsync()ing
> (and repeating 1,000,000 times) makes the allocator cry a bit with
> default settings. Especially if you were recording a few things at once.
>   
Well JFS has absolutely no problems with files created via mythtv. I
also am not going to be using mythtv on this system at all and I was
just giving some examples of my past experience with XFS and why I will
never use it. Anyway please no more XFS discussion or suggestions for
other file-systems I was mainly curious on what the stability or peoples
experiences are with ext4 and 64-bit addressing. I have long since
decided I will never run XFS again as I can't ever trust it with my data
again. I mainly wrote this list to try to find out what the opinions
were on ext4 with >16 TiB file-systems.