* Maximum file system size of XFS? @ 2013-03-09 20:51 Pascal 2013-03-09 22:29 ` Ric Wheeler 2013-03-11 21:45 ` Martin Steigerwald 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Pascal @ 2013-03-09 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-xfs Hello, I am asking you because I am insecure about the correct answer and different sources give me different numbers. My question is: What is the maximum file system size of XFS? The official page says: 2^63 = 9 x 10^18 = 9 exabytes Source: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ Wikipedia says 16 exabytes. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS Another reference books says 8 exabytes (2^63). Can anyone tell me and explain what is the maximum file system size for XFS? Thank you in advance! Pascal _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-09 20:51 Maximum file system size of XFS? Pascal @ 2013-03-09 22:29 ` Ric Wheeler 2013-03-09 22:39 ` Pascal 2013-03-11 21:45 ` Martin Steigerwald 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-03-09 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pascal; +Cc: linux-xfs On 03/09/2013 03:51 PM, Pascal wrote: > Hello, > > I am asking you because I am insecure about the correct answer and > different sources give me different numbers. > > > My question is: What is the maximum file system size of XFS? > > The official page says: 2^63 = 9 x 10^18 = 9 exabytes > Source: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > > Wikipedia says 16 exabytes. > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS > > Another reference books says 8 exabytes (2^63). > > > Can anyone tell me and explain what is the maximum file system size for > XFS? > > > Thank you in advance! > > Pascal > The maximum size that XFS can address (which is what most people post in things like wikipedia) is kind of a fantasy number. What is a better question is what is the maximum size XFS file system people have in production (even better, people who have your same work load). Lots and lots of tiny files are more challenging than very large video files for example. I think that you can easily find people with 100's of terabytes in production use. For Red Hat, we support production use of 100TB per XFS instance in RHEL6 for example since that is what we test at (and have been know to officially support larger instances by exception). Some of the things to watch out for in very large file systems is how much DRAM you have in the server. If you ever need to xfs_repair a 1PB file system, you will need a very beefy box :) Ric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-09 22:29 ` Ric Wheeler @ 2013-03-09 22:39 ` Pascal 2013-03-10 1:10 ` Eric Sandeen 2013-03-11 1:55 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Pascal @ 2013-03-09 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs Am Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:29:23 -0500 schrieb Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>: > On 03/09/2013 03:51 PM, Pascal wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am asking you because I am insecure about the correct answer and > > different sources give me different numbers. > > > > > > My question is: What is the maximum file system size of XFS? > > > > The official page says: 2^63 = 9 x 10^18 = 9 exabytes > > Source: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > > > > Wikipedia says 16 exabytes. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS > > > > Another reference books says 8 exabytes (2^63). > > > > > > Can anyone tell me and explain what is the maximum file system size > > for XFS? > > > > > > Thank you in advance! > > > > Pascal > > > > The maximum size that XFS can address (which is what most people post > in things like wikipedia) is kind of a fantasy number. > > What is a better question is what is the maximum size XFS file system > people have in production (even better, people who have your same > work load). Lots and lots of tiny files are more challenging than > very large video files for example. > > I think that you can easily find people with 100's of terabytes in > production use. For Red Hat, we support production use of 100TB per > XFS instance in RHEL6 for example since that is what we test at (and > have been know to officially support larger instances by exception). > > Some of the things to watch out for in very large file systems is how > much DRAM you have in the server. If you ever need to xfs_repair a > 1PB file system, you will need a very beefy box :) > > Ric > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > Hello Ric, thank you for your answer. I am aware that there is a difference between the maximum size under practical conditions and the theoretical maximum. But I am looking for this theoretical number to use in within in my thesis comparing file systems. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-09 22:39 ` Pascal @ 2013-03-10 1:10 ` Eric Sandeen 2013-03-10 7:54 ` Stan Hoeppner 2013-03-11 1:55 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-03-10 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pascal; +Cc: xfs On 3/9/13 4:39 PM, Pascal wrote: > Hello Ric, > > thank you for your answer. I am aware that there is a difference > between the maximum size under practical conditions and the theoretical > maximum. But I am looking for this theoretical number to use in within > in my thesis comparing file systems. A thesis comparing actual scalability would be much more interesting than one comparing, essentially, the container size chosen for a disk block. One could quickly write a filesystem which "can" be as large as a yottabyte, but it wouldn't really *mean* anything. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-10 1:10 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2013-03-10 7:54 ` Stan Hoeppner 2013-03-11 11:02 ` Stan Hoeppner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Stan Hoeppner @ 2013-03-10 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs, Pascal On 3/9/2013 7:10 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/9/13 4:39 PM, Pascal wrote: > >> Hello Ric, >> >> thank you for your answer. I am aware that there is a difference >> between the maximum size under practical conditions and the theoretical >> maximum. But I am looking for this theoretical number to use in within >> in my thesis comparing file systems. > > A thesis comparing actual scalability would be much more interesting > than one comparing, essentially, the container size chosen for a disk > block. One could quickly write a filesystem which "can" be as large > as a yottabyte, but it wouldn't really *mean* anything. Agreed. But if the OP must have the theoretical maximum, I think what's in the SGI doc is the correct number. Down below what the OP quoted from the Features section, down in the Technical Specifications, we find: " Maximum Filesystem Size For Linux 2.4, 2 TB. For Linux 2.6 and beyond, when using 64 bit addressing in the block devices layer (CONFIG_LBD) and a 64 bit platform, filesystem size limit increases to 9 million terabytes (or the device limits). For these later kernels on 32 bit platforms, 16TB is the current limit even with 64 bit addressing enabled in the block layer." I assume the OP's paper deals with the far distant future where individual rusty disk drives have 1PB capacity, thus requiring 'only' 9,000 disk drives for a RAW 9EB XFS without redundancy, or 18,000 drives for RAID10. With today's largest drives at 4TB, it would take 2.25 million disk drives for a RAW 9EB capacity, 4.5 million for RAID10. All of this assuming my math is correct. I don't regularly deal with 16 digit decimal numbers. ;) I'm also assuming in this distant future that rusty drives still lead SSD in price/capacity. That may be an incorrect assumption. Dave can beat up on me in a couple of decades if my assumption proves incorrect. ;) For a 9EB XFS to become remotely practical, I'd say disk drive capacity would have to reach 10 petabytes per drive. This yields 1800 drives for 9EB in RAID10, or 3x 42U racks each housing 10x 4U 60 drive FC RAID chassis, 600 drives per rack. I keep saying RAID10 instead of RAID6 because I don't think anyone would want to attempt a RAID6 parity rebuild of even a small 4+2 array of 10PB drives, if the sustained interface rate continues to increase at the snails pace it has in relation to aerial density. Peak interface sustained data rate today is about 200MB/s for the fastest rusty drives. If we are lucky the 10PB drives of the future will have a sustained interface rate of 20GB/s, or 100x today's fastest, which will allow for a mirroring operation to complete in about 14 hours, which is still slower than with today's 4TB drives, which take about 8 hours. Note that a 20GB/s one way data rate of such a 10PB drive would saturate a 16 lane PCI Express v3.0 slot (15GB/s), and eat 2/3rds of a v4.0 x16 slot's bandwidth (31GB/s, but won't ship until ~2016). And since current PCIe controller to processor interconnects are limited to about 12-20GB/s one way, PCIe b/w doesn't matter. Thus, the throughput of our our peripheral and system level interconnects much increase many fold as well to facilitate the hardware that would enable an EB sized XFS. And as Ric mentioned, the memory capacity requirements for executing xfs_repair on a 9EB XFS would likely require a host machine with many hundreds of times the memory capacity of system available today. That and/or a rewrite of xfs_repair to make more efficient use of RAM. So in summary, an Exabyte scale XFS is simply not practical today, and won't be for at least another couple of decades, or more, if ever. The same holds true for some of the other filesystems you're going to be writing about. Some of the cluster and/or distributed filesystems you're looking at could probably scale to Exabytes today. That is, if someone had the budget for half a million hard drives, host systems, switches, etc, the facilities to house it all, and the budget for power and cooling. That's 834 racks for drives alone, just under 1/3rd of a mile long if installed in a single row. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-10 7:54 ` Stan Hoeppner @ 2013-03-11 11:02 ` Stan Hoeppner 2013-03-11 16:15 ` Hans-Peter Jansen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Stan Hoeppner @ 2013-03-11 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: stan; +Cc: Pascal, Eric Sandeen, xfs On 3/10/2013 1:54 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > So in summary, an Exabyte scale XFS is simply not practical today, and > won't be for at least another couple of decades, or more, if ever. The > same holds true for some of the other filesystems you're going to be > writing about. Some of the cluster and/or distributed filesystems > you're looking at could probably scale to Exabytes today. That is, if > someone had the budget for half a million hard drives, host systems, > switches, etc, the facilities to house it all, and the budget for power > and cooling. That's 834 racks for drives alone, just under 1/3rd of a > mile long if installed in a single row. Jet lag due to time travel caused a math error above. With today's 4TB drives it would require 2.25 million units for a raw 9EB capacity. That's 3,750 racks of 600 drives each. These would stretch 1.42 miles, 7500 ft. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 11:02 ` Stan Hoeppner @ 2013-03-11 16:15 ` Hans-Peter Jansen 2013-03-11 16:22 ` Emmanuel Florac 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Hans-Peter Jansen @ 2013-03-11 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs, stan; +Cc: Eric Sandeen, Pascal Am Montag, 11. März 2013, 06:02:26 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > On 3/10/2013 1:54 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > So in summary, an Exabyte scale XFS is simply not practical today, and > > won't be for at least another couple of decades, or more, if ever. The > > same holds true for some of the other filesystems you're going to be > > writing about. Some of the cluster and/or distributed filesystems > > you're looking at could probably scale to Exabytes today. That is, if > > someone had the budget for half a million hard drives, host systems, > > switches, etc, the facilities to house it all, and the budget for power > > and cooling. That's 834 racks for drives alone, just under 1/3rd of a > > mile long if installed in a single row. > > Jet lag due to time travel caused a math error above. With today's 4TB > drives it would require 2.25 million units for a raw 9EB capacity. > That's 3,750 racks of 600 drives each. These would stretch 1.42 miles, > 7500 ft. And I just acknowledged the building plans for our new datacenter, based on your former calculations. The question is, who carries the costs of the now needed 4 other floors of that building.. Are you well-insured, Stan? Cheers, Pete _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 16:15 ` Hans-Peter Jansen @ 2013-03-11 16:22 ` Emmanuel Florac 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Emmanuel Florac @ 2013-03-11 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hans-Peter Jansen; +Cc: Pascal, Eric Sandeen, stan, xfs Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:15:08 +0100 Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@urpla.net> écrivait: > And I just acknowledged the building plans for our new datacenter, > based on your former calculations. Don't be afraid, there are 80 drives 4U chassis available, and 5TB drives are around the corner. That's 800 drives and a raw capacity of 4 PB per 42U rack. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique | Intellique | <eflorac@intellique.com> | +33 1 78 94 84 02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-09 22:39 ` Pascal 2013-03-10 1:10 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2013-03-11 1:55 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-11 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pascal; +Cc: xfs On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 11:39:40PM +0100, Pascal wrote: > thank you for your answer. I am aware that there is a difference > between the maximum size under practical conditions and the theoretical > maximum. But I am looking for this theoretical number to use in within > in my thesis comparing file systems. Out of curiousity, what apsect of file systems are you comparing? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-09 20:51 Maximum file system size of XFS? Pascal 2013-03-09 22:29 ` Ric Wheeler @ 2013-03-11 21:45 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 21:57 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:10 ` Martin Steigerwald 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs; +Cc: Pascal Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Pascal: > Hello, Hi Pascal, > I am asking you because I am insecure about the correct answer and > different sources give me different numbers. > > > My question is: What is the maximum file system size of XFS? > > The official page says: 2^63 = 9 x 10^18 = 9 exabytes > Source: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > > Wikipedia says 16 exabytes. > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS > > Another reference books says 8 exabytes (2^63). > > > Can anyone tell me and explain what is the maximum file system size for > XFS? You can test it. The theoretical limit. Whether such a filesystem will work nicely with a real workload is, as pointed out, a different question. 1) Use a big enough XFS filesystem (yes, it has to be XFS for anything else that can carry a exabyte big sparse file) merkaba:~> LANG=C mkfs.xfs -L justcrazy /dev/merkaba/zeit meta-data=/dev/merkaba/zeit isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=1310720 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=5242880, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 2) Create a insanely big sparse file merkaba:~> truncate -s1E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:~> ls -lh /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,0E Mär 11 22:37 /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img (No, this won´t work with Ext4.) 3) Make a XFS file system into it: merkaba:~> mkfs.xfs -L /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img I won´t today. I tried that for gag during a linux performance and analysis training I held on a ThinkPad T520 with Sandybridge i5 2,50 GhZ, Intel SSD 320 on an about 20 GiB XFS filesystem. The mkfs command run for something like one or two hours. It was using quite some CPU and quite some SSD, but did not max out one of it. The host XFS filesystem was almost full, so the image took just about those 20 GiB. 4) Mount it and enjoy the output of df -hT. 5) Write to if it you dare. I did it, until the Linux kernel told something about "lost buffer writes". What I found strange is, that the dd writing to the 1E filesystem did not quit then with input/output error. It just ran on. I didn´t test this with any larger size, but if size and time usage scales linearily it might be possible to create a 10EiB filesystem within 200 GiB host XFS and hum about a day of waiting :). No, I do not suggest to use anything even just remotely like this in production. And no, my test didn´t show that an 1EiB filesystem will work nicely with any real life workload. Am I crazy for trying this? I might be :) Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 21:45 ` Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 21:57 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:01 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:19 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-11 22:10 ` Martin Steigerwald 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs; +Cc: Pascal Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > 2) Create a insanely big sparse file > > merkaba:~> truncate -s1E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > merkaba:~> ls -lh /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,0E Mär 11 22:37 /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > (No, this won´t work with Ext4.) Okay, you can´t go beyond 8 EiB for a single file which is about what I have read somewhere: merkaba:/mnt/zeit> ls -lh insgesamt 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,0E Mär 11 22:37 evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s2E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s3E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s4E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s5E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s6E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s7E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> LANG=C truncate -s8E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img truncate: invalid number '8E': Value too large for defined data type merkaba:/mnt/zeit#1> ls -lh insgesamt 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:49 evenmorecrazy.img So so tests stops there, until you concatenate two of those files with LVM or SoftRAID 0 (if that works). Like this (I just had to try it): merkaba:/mnt/zeit> ls -lh insgesamt 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:49 evenmorecrazy.img -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:52 evenmorecrazy.img2 merkaba:/mnt/zeit> losetup /dev/loop0 evenmorecrazy.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> losetup /dev/loop1 evenmorecrazy.img2 merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> pvcreate /dev/loop0 Physical volume "/dev/loop0" successfully created merkaba:/mnt/zeit> pvcreate /dev/loop1 Physical volume "/dev/loop1" successfully created merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgcreate justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 PV /dev/loop0 too large for extent size 4,00 MiB. Format-specific setup of physical volume '/dev/loop0' failed. Unable to add physical volume '/dev/loop0' to volume group 'justinsane'. merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 16M justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 PV /dev/loop0 too large for extent size 16,00 MiB. Format-specific setup of physical volume '/dev/loop0' failed. Unable to add physical volume '/dev/loop0' to volume group 'justinsane'. merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 128M justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 PV /dev/loop0 too large for extent size 128,00 MiB. Format-specific setup of physical volume '/dev/loop0' failed. Unable to add physical volume '/dev/loop0' to volume group 'justinsane'. merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 1G justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 PV /dev/loop0 too large for extent size 1,00 GiB. Format-specific setup of physical volume '/dev/loop0' failed. Unable to add physical volume '/dev/loop0' to volume group 'justinsane'. merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 4G justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 Volume group "justinsane" successfully created merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgs VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFree justinsane 2 0 0 wz--n- 14,00e 14,00e merkaba 1 4 0 wz--n- 278,99g 4,85g merkaba:/mnt/zeit> merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgdisplay justinsane --- Volume group --- VG Name justinsane System ID Format lvm2 Metadata Areas 2 Metadata Sequence No 1 VG Access read/write VG Status resizable MAX LV 0 Cur LV 0 Open LV 0 Max PV 0 Cur PV 2 Act PV 2 VG Size 14,00 EiB PE Size 4,00 GiB Total PE 3758096382 Alloc PE / Size 0 / 0 Free PE / Size 3758096382 / 14,00 EiB VG UUID z8JP5s-lfRw-uKo8-DXAP-XWGe-aKra-xug9Nn Enough insanity for today :) I won´t mkfs.xfs on it, the 20 GiB of the just filesystem wouldn´t be enough. Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 21:57 ` Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:01 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:04 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:19 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs; +Cc: Pascal Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > 2) Create a insanely big sparse file > > > > merkaba:~> truncate -s1E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > merkaba:~> ls -lh /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,0E Mär 11 22:37 /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > > > (No, this won´t work with Ext4.) > > Okay, you can´t go beyond 8 EiB for a single file which is about what I > have read somewhere: […] > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s7E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> LANG=C truncate -s8E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > truncate: invalid number '8E': Value too large for defined data type > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#1> ls -lh > insgesamt 0 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:49 evenmorecrazy.img > > So so tests stops there, until you concatenate two of those files with > LVM or SoftRAID 0 (if that works). Like this (I just had to try it): > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> ls -lh > insgesamt 0 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:49 evenmorecrazy.img > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:52 evenmorecrazy.img2 > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> losetup /dev/loop0 evenmorecrazy.img > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> losetup /dev/loop1 evenmorecrazy.img2 > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> pvcreate /dev/loop0 > Physical volume "/dev/loop0" successfully created > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> pvcreate /dev/loop1 > Physical volume "/dev/loop1" successfully created > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgcreate justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 > PV /dev/loop0 too large for extent size 4,00 MiB. > Format-specific setup of physical volume '/dev/loop0' failed. > Unable to add physical volume '/dev/loop0' to volume group > 'justinsane'. […] > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 4G justinsane > /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 > Volume group "justinsane" successfully created > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgs > VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFree > justinsane 2 0 0 wz--n- 14,00e 14,00e > merkaba 1 4 0 wz--n- 278,99g 4,85g > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgdisplay justinsane […] > Enough insanity for today :) Not quite: > I won´t mkfs.xfs on it, the 20 GiB of the just filesystem wouldn´t be > enough. Ok, there seems to be another limit involved: merkaba:/mnt/zeit> lvcreate -n yourbiggiexfs -L14E justinsane Volume group "justinsane" has insufficient free space (3758096382 extents): 3758096384 required. merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> LANG=C lvcreate -n yourbiggiexfs -L14E justinsane Volume group "justinsane" has insufficient free space (3758096382 extents): 3758096384 required. merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> LANG=C lvcreate -n yourbiggiexfs -L13E justinsane /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 0 failed: Invalid argument /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 0 failed: Invalid argument Logical volume "yourbiggiexfs" created merkaba:/mnt/zeit> LANG=C lvs /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 14987979559888945152 failed: Invalid argument /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 14987979559889002496 failed: Invalid argument /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 0 failed: Invalid argument /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 4096 failed: Invalid argument /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 0 failed: Invalid argument LV VG Attr LSize Pool Origin Data% Move Log Copy% Convert yourbiggiexfs justinsane -wi-a---- 13.00e So testing with 9 EiB might become some issue :) Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 22:01 ` Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:04 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-20 18:26 ` Pascal 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > > 2) Create a insanely big sparse file > > > > > > merkaba:~> truncate -s1E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > > merkaba:~> ls -lh /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,0E Mär 11 22:37 /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > > > > > (No, this won´t work with Ext4.) > > > > Okay, you can´t go beyond 8 EiB for a single file which is about what I > > > have read somewhere: > […] > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s7E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> LANG=C truncate -s8E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > truncate: invalid number '8E': Value too large for defined data type > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#1> ls -lh > > insgesamt 0 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:49 evenmorecrazy.img > > > > So so tests stops there, until you concatenate two of those files with > > LVM or SoftRAID 0 (if that works). Like this (I just had to try it): > > > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> ls -lh > > insgesamt 0 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:49 evenmorecrazy.img > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 22:52 evenmorecrazy.img2 > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> losetup /dev/loop0 evenmorecrazy.img > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> losetup /dev/loop1 evenmorecrazy.img2 > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> pvcreate /dev/loop0 > > > > Physical volume "/dev/loop0" successfully created > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> pvcreate /dev/loop1 > > > > Physical volume "/dev/loop1" successfully created > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgcreate justinsane /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 > > > > PV /dev/loop0 too large for extent size 4,00 MiB. > > Format-specific setup of physical volume '/dev/loop0' failed. > > Unable to add physical volume '/dev/loop0' to volume group > > > > 'justinsane'. > > […] > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 4G justinsane > > /dev/loop0 /dev/loop1 > > > > Volume group "justinsane" successfully created > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgs > > > > VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFree > > justinsane 2 0 0 wz--n- 14,00e 14,00e > > merkaba 1 4 0 wz--n- 278,99g 4,85g > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> > > > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgdisplay justinsane > > […] > > > Enough insanity for today :) > > Not quite: > > I won´t mkfs.xfs on it, the 20 GiB of the just filesystem wouldn´t be > > enough. > > Ok, there seems to be another limit involved: > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> lvcreate -n yourbiggiexfs -L14E justinsane > Volume group "justinsane" has insufficient free space (3758096382 > extents): 3758096384 required. […] > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> LANG=C lvcreate -n yourbiggiexfs -L13E justinsane > /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 0 failed: Invalid argument > /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 0 failed: Invalid argument > Logical volume "yourbiggiexfs" created > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> LANG=C lvs > /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 14987979559888945152 failed: > Invalid argument > /dev/justinsane/yourbiggiexfs: lseek 14987979559889002496 failed: > Invalid argument Well, merkaba:/mnt/zeit> LANG=C ls -l total 24 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8070450532247928832 Mar 11 23:02 evenmorecrazy.img -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8070450532247928832 Mar 11 23:02 evenmorecrazy.img2 looks crazy enough for me already. (Ok, I really stop this now :) Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 22:04 ` Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-20 18:26 ` Pascal 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Pascal @ 2013-03-20 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-xfs Am Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:04:14 +0100 schrieb Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>: > > > Enough insanity for today :) Hey Martin, I am very impressed by the time and effort you spent into it! Thank you! And thanks to everyone for answering my question! _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 21:57 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:01 ` Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:19 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-11 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Steigerwald; +Cc: Pascal, xfs On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:57:00PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > 2) Create a insanely big sparse file > > > > merkaba:~> truncate -s1E /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > merkaba:~> ls -lh /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,0E Mär 11 22:37 /mnt/zeit/evenmorecrazy.img > > > > (No, this won´t work with Ext4.) > > Okay, you can´t go beyond 8 EiB for a single file which is about what I have > read somewhere: Right - file size offsets max out at 2^63 bytes. .... > merkaba:/mnt/zeit#5> vgcreate --physicalextentsize 4G justinsane /dev/loop0 > /dev/loop1 > Volume group "justinsane" successfully created > > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> vgs > VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFree > justinsane 2 0 0 wz--n- 14,00e 14,00e > merkaba 1 4 0 wz--n- 278,99g 4,85g > merkaba:/mnt/zeit> .... > Enough insanity for today :) > > I won´t mkfs.xfs on it, the 20 GiB of the just filesystem wouldn´t be > enough. Right - I did a mkfs.xfs on a (8EB - 1GB) file a couple of days ago just to check it worked. I killed it after a short while, because I didn't feel like needlessly subjecting the SSDs the file was physically located on to the 25 million sparse sector sized writes needed for mkfs to complete. And you can double that number of writes needed for a 16EB filesystem to be initialised by mkfs. So, theory be damned, even mkfs.xfs doesn't scale to supporting exabyte filesystems... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? 2013-03-11 21:45 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 21:57 ` Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:10 ` Martin Steigerwald 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Martin Steigerwald @ 2013-03-11 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs; +Cc: Pascal Am Montag, 11. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Pascal: > > Hello, > > Hi Pascal, > > > I am asking you because I am insecure about the correct answer and > > different sources give me different numbers. > > > > > > > > > > My question is: What is the maximum file system size of XFS? > > > > > > > > The official page says: 2^63 = 9 x 10^18 = 9 exabytes > > Source: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ > > > > > > > > Wikipedia says 16 exabytes. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS > > > > > > > > Another reference books says 8 exabytes (2^63). > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me and explain what is the maximum file system size for > > XFS? > > You can test it. The theoretical limit. Whether such a filesystem will > work nicely with a real workload is, as pointed out, a different > question. Well, as I just demonstrated, you can´t. At least not with XFS within XFS. You can only test for maximum filesize. If XFS can be larger than that, you need a filesystem which can carry an even larger file. Maybe ZFS on Linux or so? BTRFS doesn´t go beyond 8 EiB per file as well: merkaba:/mnt#1> mkfs.btrfs -n 16384 -l 16384 /dev/merkaba/zeit WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using fs created label (null) on /dev/merkaba/zeit nodesize 16384 leafsize 16384 sectorsize 4096 size 20.00GB Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 merkaba:/mnt> mount /dev/merkaba/zeit zeit merkaba:/mnt> cd zeit merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s1E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s2E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s3E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s4E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s5E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s6E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s7E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img merkaba:/mnt/zeit> truncate -s8E canitgetcrazierthanthat.img truncate: ungültige Zahl „8E“: Der Wert ist zu groß für den definierten Datentyp merkaba:/mnt/zeit#1> LANG=C truncate -s8E canitgetcrazierthanthat.im truncate: invalid number '8E': Value too large for defined data type merkaba:/mnt/zeit#1> ls -lh insgesamt 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7,0E Mär 11 23:09 canitgetcrazierthanthat.img Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-03-20 18:26 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-03-09 20:51 Maximum file system size of XFS? Pascal 2013-03-09 22:29 ` Ric Wheeler 2013-03-09 22:39 ` Pascal 2013-03-10 1:10 ` Eric Sandeen 2013-03-10 7:54 ` Stan Hoeppner 2013-03-11 11:02 ` Stan Hoeppner 2013-03-11 16:15 ` Hans-Peter Jansen 2013-03-11 16:22 ` Emmanuel Florac 2013-03-11 1:55 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-11 21:45 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 21:57 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:01 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-11 22:04 ` Martin Steigerwald 2013-03-20 18:26 ` Pascal 2013-03-11 22:19 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-11 22:10 ` Martin Steigerwald
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox