public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: 128TB filesystem limit?
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:35:11 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100326003511.GN3335@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251702190.12435@asgard.lang.hm>

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:03:52PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:15:42PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> >>I'm working with a raid 0 (md) array on top of 10 16x1TB raid 6
> >>hardware arrays.
....
> >>I then did mkfs.xfs /dev/md0
> >>
> >>but a df is showing me 128TB
> >
> >What is in /proc/partitions?
> 
> # cat /proc/partitions
> major minor  #blocks  name
> 
>    8        0  292542464 sda
>    8        1    2048287 sda1
>    8        2    2048287 sda2
>    8        3    2048287 sda3
>    8        4  286390755 sda4
>    8       16 13671874048 sdb
>    8       17 13671874014 sdb1
>    8       32 13671874048 sdc
>    8       33 13671874014 sdc1
....
>    8      160 13671874048 sdk
>    8      161 13671874014 sdk1
>    9        0 136718739840 md0

Is there any reason for putting partitions on these block devices?
You could just use the block devices without partitions, and that
will avoid alignment potential problems....

> >>is this just rounding error combined with the 1000=1k vs 1024=1k
> >>marketing stuff,
> >
> >Probably.
> >
> >>or is there some limit I am bumping into here.
> >
> >Unlikely to be an XFS limit - I was doing some "what happens if"
> >testing on multi-PB sized XFS filesystems hosted on sparse files
> >a couple of days ago....
> 
> Ok, 128TB is a suspiciously round (in computer terms) number,
> especially when the math is 10 sets of 14 drives (each 1TB), so I
> figured I'd double check.

136718739840 / 10^9 = 136.72TB    <==== marketing number
136718739840 / 2^30 = 127.33TiB   <==== what df shows

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-26  0:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-25 23:15 128TB filesystem limit? david
2010-03-25 23:54 ` Dave Chinner
2010-03-26  0:03   ` david
2010-03-26  0:35     ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-03-26  2:02       ` david
2010-03-26  4:35         ` Eric Sandeen
2010-03-26  4:56           ` david
2010-03-26  6:09             ` Stan Hoeppner
2010-03-26  7:26             ` Steve Costaras
2010-03-27  9:06 ` Emmanuel Florac
2010-03-27 14:28   ` Steve Costaras
2010-03-27 18:45   ` david
2010-03-28 21:17 ` Peter Grandi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100326003511.GN3335@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=david@lang.hm \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox