similar to: Is EXT4 filesystem production ready in CenTOS 5.x series?

mkfs.ext4 fails to create 38TB file system on CentOS 6.4 64bit with this error: mkfs.ext4: Size of device /dev/vg02/vtapes too big to be expressed in 32 bits using a blocksize of 4096. More details follow: # uname -a Linux tzbackup 2.6.32-358.18.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Aug 28 17:19:38 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # fdisk -l /dev/sdc Disk /dev/sdc: 41996.7 GB, 41996727091200

Hi, This might be a silly question: which would be the best inode ratio for a 5 Tb filesystem dedicated to Maildir++ storage? I use ubuntu server, which has a preconfigured setting for mkfs.ext4 called "news" with inode_ratio = 4096, and after formating the fs with that setting and then with the defautl setting I see this difference of space (wasted space, but more inodes): 4328633696

Hi, Recently I build a filesystem in a device using mkfs.ext4 but when I tried to mount the device show this error: ??? mount: unknown filesystem type 'ext4' But when I build the same device with mkfs.ext4dev I can mont the device without problem. My doubt is when Centos 5.4 is released if I will have a problem because the partition is ext4dev. Thanks, -- Daniel Bruno

I have something like 300G I routinely backup. This includes some large 12Gig images and other files. I had been using ext3 on an external USB disk for part of the process. Under ext3 doing "rsync -a /home /mnt/external_back/backup.jun.27.2011" it took 200 minutes. I took the same computer, same external HD and reformatted it for ext4 (mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdd1). I then started the same

Hello, Do you have recommendations on EXT4 and LVM options for a 3TB file-system for mdbox? We currently use the mbox format on a XFS with poor performances since the update in v2.1 (Debian). We will switch to EXT4 to have the possibility of shrinking the file-system if needed (which is not possible with XFS), we currently have LVM partitions but with mdbox we will use LVM snapshots to

Hi, Michael I have met ext4 error when using vhost_scsi on arm64 platform, and suspect it is vhost_scsi issue. Ext4 error when testing virtio_scsi & vhost_scsi No issue: 1. virtio_scsi, ext4 2. vhost_scsi & virtio_scsi, ext2 3. Instead of vhost, also tried loopback and no problem. Using loopback, host can use the new block device, while vhost is used by guest (qemu).

Hi, Michael I have met ext4 error when using vhost_scsi on arm64 platform, and suspect it is vhost_scsi issue. Ext4 error when testing virtio_scsi & vhost_scsi No issue: 1. virtio_scsi, ext4 2. vhost_scsi & virtio_scsi, ext2 3. Instead of vhost, also tried loopback and no problem. Using loopback, host can use the new block device, while vhost is used by guest (qemu).

I have a couple development servers running centos 6.3 64bit that have LSI 9211-8i SAS2 controllers connected to a SAS2 backplane. these work fine with SATA hard disks (populated with a bunch of 3TB SATA drives)... I'm trying to install a OCZ Vertex3 SSD on each of the two servers to do some ssd caching tests... system sees the drive, so I do the following... # parted -a min

With kernel 2.6.30-rc2-git6 and prior I am having problems mounting ext4 partitions after reboot. A successful mount looks like this: /dev/cciss/c0d0p8 on /squid-cache0 type ext4 (rw,noexec,nodev,noatime,data=writeback,errors=panic) /dev/cciss/c0d0p9 on /squid-cache1 type ext4 (rw,noexec,nodev,noatime,data=writeback,errors=panic) /dev/cciss/c0d0p10 on /squid-data type ext4

I just read the rhel6 filesystem size limit. http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ It says 16TB limit for ext4 (same as ext3)?!?! I thought ext4 was supposed to support 1EB ( ~ 1 million TB) limit. That was one of the main advantages of rhel6. After a little more digging all I found was that the user space formatting tools (mkfs.ext4) only support 32bit filesystems (not 48bits). I'm surprised

I have an ext4 filesystem for which I'm trying to use "tune2fs -l". Here is the listing of the filesystem from the "mount" command: # mount | grep share /dev/mapper/VolGroup_Share-LogVol_Share on /share type ext4 (rw,noatime,nodiratime,usrjquota=aquota.user,jqfmt=vfsv0,data=writeback,nobh,barrier=0) When I try to run "tune2fs" on it, I get the following error:

Hi, I've spent few long hours on weekend trying to get syslinux as boot loader for my alpine linux. Long story short: Failing to load ldlinux.c32 on ext4, but after changing file system from ext4 to ext3, everything worked (all other things being the same). Details below, my setup is fairly complicated so this is might be a partial reason, ALTHOUGH final and the only change which makes

Hi all, are there any plans that future versions of mkfs.btrfs will do an initial pre-discard for SSDs? (AFAIK mkfs.btrfs does not do this currently) For Ext4, mke2fs does this with the -E discard option. From the mke2fs manpage: -E discard Attempt to discard blocks at mkfs time (discarding blocks initially is useful on solid state devices and sparse / thin-provisioned storage). When

Hi All, When a couple of EXT4 filesystems are mounted in a server I get the message Oct 1 18:49:42 sraid3 kernel: EXT4-fs (sdb): mounted filesystem without journal Oct 1 18:49:42 sraid3 kernel: EXT4-fs (sdc): mounted filesystem without journal in the system logs. My confusion is why are they mounted without a journal? They were both created with mkfs -t ext4 /dev/sdb mkfs -t ext4

Dear all, I'm working on a shell script which is producing a bootable image file. It contains a populated MBR and a single file system (ext4) which again contains a debootstrabed debian stable distribution. Unfortunately, I'm experiencing problems with the bootability of the produced image. When selecting the installed system at the boot prompt, Syslinux responds with something like

On a CentOS 6 64bit system, I added a couple prototype SAS SSDs on a HP P411 raid controller (I believe this is a rebranded LSI megaraid with HP firmware) and am trying to format them for best random IO performance with something like postgresql. so, I used the raid command tool to build a raid0 with 2 SAS SSDs # hpacucli ctrl slot=1 logicaldrive 3 show detail Smart Array P410 in Slot 1

tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as tune2fs against ext4. Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > ># rpm -qf `which

Hi, Jan On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed 27-07-16 15:58:55, Zhangfei Gao wrote: >> Hi, Michael >> >> I have met ext4 error when using vhost_scsi on arm64 platform, and >> suspect it is vhost_scsi issue. >> >> Ext4 error when testing virtio_scsi & vhost_scsi >> >> >> No

Hi, Jan On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed 27-07-16 15:58:55, Zhangfei Gao wrote: >> Hi, Michael >> >> I have met ext4 error when using vhost_scsi on arm64 platform, and >> suspect it is vhost_scsi issue. >> >> Ext4 error when testing virtio_scsi & vhost_scsi >> >> >> No

Hi I need to store about 250.000.000 files. Files are less than 4k. On a ext4 (fedora 14) the system crawl at 10.000.000 in the same directory. I tried to create hash directories, two level of 4096 dir = 16.000.000 but I had to stop the script to create these dir after hours and "rm -rf" would have taken days ! mkfs was my friend I tried two levels, first of 4096 dir, second of 64