Re: >16TB issues

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>]

On Jul 02, 2009  15:23 -0700, Justin Maggard wrote:
> I've been toying with ext4 and e2fsprogs pu branch (pulled from git
> yesterday) on very large volumes, and I've run into some issues.  What
> I've found so far with an 19TB MD RAID0 volume, running 2.6.29.4 (I'm
> planning on trying 2.6.30 soon):
> 
> -  mkfs.ext4 *appears* to work fine, reporting no errors.  Examining
> the superblock info with dumpe2fs -h looks normal -- although I'm
> unfamiliar with "Lifetime writes" field, and I'm not sure why it's at
> 73GB immediately after doing mkfs, before ever mount it.
> 
> -  Immediately running e2fsck on the volume before ever mounting it
> will not complete, and results in the following:
> # e2fsck -n /dev/md2
> e2fsck 1.41.7 (29-June-2009)
> Error reading block 2435874816 (Attempt to read block from filesystem
> resulted in short read).  Ignore error? no
> /dev/md2: Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read
> while reading block 2435874816
> /dev/md2: Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read
> reading journal superblock
> e2fsck: Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read
> while checking ext3 journal for /dev/md2

It looks like there may be some problem with the underlying device?
I posted a program here a few months ago called "ll_ver_dev" which
can quickly (or slowly) verify that writes and reads to different
offsets in a block device return consistent data.  The quick version
will detect such problems as 32-bit overflows, but if you are having
strange problems you might need to run the full version.

You could also try running with a filesystem just under 16TB and
verifying that works.

> -  Mounting with -o noload does appear to work, and reading and
> writing seems to work fine.

That's because the journal is not being used, which is what seems to
be having the problem.  I wonder if the journal is beyond 8TB or
beyond 16TB for some reason and this is causing grief?

> -  Setting default mount options with tune2fs works fine, as expected.
> 
> -  Then, I went on to check out filesystem resizing.  I created an LVM
> 15TB LV, and ran mkfs.ext4 on it.  Looking at the superblock info, it
> did not contain the 64bit flag, which I assume is expected behavior.
> I extended the LV to ~18TB and tried resize2fs, and got this error:
> resize2fs: Can't read an block bitmap while trying to resize /dev/data/data0

This is known not to work, AFAIR.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.