On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 01:10:00PM -0500, Phil Schwan wrote:> We''re not aware of any limits below 2 TB with ext3 and 2.4. Almost all of > our customers use 2 TB backend file systems.The 2 TB limitation in linux 2.4 comes from using 32 bit integers to store sector numbers in the blockdevice-layer and the scsi-layer. Some SCSI-drivers use signed integers rather than unsigned integer and thus only work with devices up to 1 TB. The most common drivers, such as the Adaptec- and qlogic- drivers work fine though. -- Ragnar Kjørstad Software Engineer Scali - http://www.scali.com High Performance Clustering
We have decided for expediency to change our partition size down to 1TB. I did this and every thing worked fine. I am hoping in the future after some upgrades that lustre will let us grow the partition and filesystems to make use of the currently unused space. Thanks for all the responses. I really appreciate the help. Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 01:10:00PM -0500, Phil Schwan wrote: > >>We''re not aware of any limits below 2 TB with ext3 and 2.4. Almost all of >>our customers use 2 TB backend file systems. > > > The 2 TB limitation in linux 2.4 comes from using 32 bit integers to > store sector numbers in the blockdevice-layer and the scsi-layer. > > Some SCSI-drivers use signed integers rather than unsigned integer and > thus only work with devices up to 1 TB. > > The most common drivers, such as the Adaptec- and qlogic- drivers work > fine though. > >-- Thank you, Michael Robokoff Systems Programmer / Administrator Army High Performance Computing Research Center mrobo@ahpcrc.org 612-337-3559 Desk --------------------------------------------------------------------- "This message (including any attachments) may contain proprietary or privileged information, the use and disclosure of which is legally restricted. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender by reply message, do not otherwise distribute it, and delete this message, with all of its contents, from your files." --------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================NOTICE: The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of the "Army High Performance Computing Research Center" or of the personnel associated with it. =====================================================================
Mike, Ext3 in 2.4 kernel can accomodate max 2TB, imho. 2.6 kernel extends this to 16TB. -Kums On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, mrobo wrote:> I have a raid system with ~1.7TB of storage. Unfortunately it > is larger then the 1TB limit with ext3 and the 2.4 kernel. Has > anyone else run into this? What is the recommended way to > get around this limitation? > > --Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss@lists.clusterfs.com > https://lists.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 10:59 -0600, mrobo wrote:> I have a raid system with ~1.7TB of storage. Unfortunately it > is larger then the 1TB limit with ext3 and the 2.4 kernel. Has > anyone else run into this? What is the recommended way to > get around this limitation?I''m not qualified to make a recommendation, but I can guess. Have you tried adding the RAID as two OSTs of less than 1 TB each? -jwb
We''re not aware of any limits below 2 TB with ext3 and 2.4. Almost all of our customers use 2 TB backend file systems. In any case, you could also partition it into two OSTs of .85 TB each. -Phil On 2/2/2005 11:59, mrobo wrote:> I have a raid system with ~1.7TB of storage. Unfortunately it > is larger then the 1TB limit with ext3 and the 2.4 kernel. Has > anyone else run into this? What is the recommended way to > get around this limitation?
Some of the information I have seen indicate a 1TB limit, and this would be in line with the problem I am seeing. When I create the filesystem I get disk errors on three different units all at the same place however. Thanks for the response. --Mike Kumaran Rajaram wrote:>Mike, > > Ext3 in 2.4 kernel can accomodate max 2TB, imho. 2.6 kernel extends >this to 16TB. > >-Kums > >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, mrobo wrote: > > > >>I have a raid system with ~1.7TB of storage. Unfortunately it >>is larger then the 1TB limit with ext3 and the 2.4 kernel. Has >>anyone else run into this? What is the recommended way to >>get around this limitation? >> >>--Mike >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Lustre-discuss mailing list >>Lustre-discuss@lists.clusterfs.com >>https://lists.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss >> >> >>