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 m0SJ8atP001459 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:08:36 -0500 Received: from scidubsmtp03.stercomm.com (scidubsmtp03.stercomm.com [209.95.244.153]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0SJ8G02002780 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:08:16 -0500 Received: from IWDUBCORMSG001.sci.local (iwdubcormsg001.sci.local [10.105.142.31]) by boamail2.stercomm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F36F33CE2 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:09:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM limits? From: Chris Cox In-Reply-To: <200801281801.m0SI10Xi010185@beta.mvs.co.il> References: <479DAD35.1080209@cesca.es> <479E2BEF.1090703@cesca.es> <1201541894.30560.24.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com> <200801281801.m0SI10Xi010185@beta.mvs.co.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:08:14 -0600 Message-Id: <1201547294.30560.29.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 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" To: LVM general discussion and development On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 20:01 +0200, Ehud Karni wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:38:14 Chris Cox wrote: > > > > 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. > > Just last night I ran fsck on my home 1.5 TB file server (it is software > RAID-5 - mdadm, built on 7200 RPM, 500GB SATA2 x 4, ext3 without LVM). > It has went 191 days without fsck so when I booted the machine (I just > upgraded to 2.6.18-53.1.6.el5) it did the fsck automaticaly. > > It took less then 90 minutes. :) It can vary. I've seen it take days (on infrastructure much better than what you have).