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 m0SJsn20004242 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:54:49 -0500 Received: from smtp-3.hut.fi (smtp-3.hut.fi [130.233.228.93]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0SJsBIh006809 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:54:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:53:37 +0200 (EET) From: Vesa-Pekka Palmu Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM limits? In-Reply-To: <200801281801.m0SI10Xi010185@beta.mvs.co.il> Message-ID: References: <479DAD35.1080209@cesca.es> <479E2BEF.1090703@cesca.es> <1201541894.30560.24.camel@behemoth.csg.stercomm.com> <200801281801.m0SI10Xi010185@beta.mvs.co.il> 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"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ehud@unix.mvs.co.il, LVM general discussion and development On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, 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. > ext3 isn't the best filesystem for large volumes, it's worth considering alternatives like jfs.