From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F5F7F37 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:02:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71539304039 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qMEKLuWDH9g1wfLV for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <513DB9C2.3050408@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:02:26 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? References: <20130309215121.0e614ef8@thinky> <513BB7C3.4050009@redhat.com> <20130309233940.3b7c0910@thinky> <513BDD6E.7010507@sandeen.net> <513C3C43.7080104@hardwarefreak.com> In-Reply-To: <513C3C43.7080104@hardwarefreak.com> Reply-To: stan@hardwarefreak.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: stan@hardwarefreak.com Cc: Pascal , Eric Sandeen , xfs@oss.sgi.com 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