>From my previous experience it's pure speculation until someone actually HAS a file system of X size to make a determination such as that.   Having run into limits that 'should not have been there' at 1TB, 2TB, 8TB, 16TB, and 32TB when I've crossed each one (different file systems but all at the time of crossing them have been 'supposedly' capable of handling it, don't. Most recent is the 32TiB limit in JFS, granted it looks to be all the jfs tools but that doesn't matter when you still loose all your data. ;)

I know that XFS can handle >64TiB as I have that running (though made sure I had backups before I expanded to that).    I have not seen a deployment of 128TiB to see if that works, not saying it can't or wont just that I haven't seen it.

However from the thread here it appears that <128TiB (just shy it seems) works and what the OP seems to be running into is a units discrepancy.   Using base 10 on the drives and then having the system use base 2 for display.   This is more dramatic the larger the drive/array and the lack of education/updates to properly display the units (?iB for base 2 (e.g. TiB) and ?B for base 10 (e.g. TB)).   So easily confused.

On 03/27/2010 04:06, Emmanuel Florac wrote:

Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT) vous écriviez:

is this just rounding error combined with the 1000=1k vs 1024=1k
marketing stuff, or is there some limit I am bumping into here.

This isn't an xfs limit, I've set up several hundred big xfs FS for
more than 5 years (13 to 76 TB) and never saw that. It must be a bug in
df or elsewhere. What distribution is this? and architecture?