From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 15 20:33:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from soda.csua.Berkeley.edu (soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.43.52]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CE04527 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from soda.csua.Berkeley.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by soda.csua.Berkeley.edu (8.8.8/) via ESMTP id UAA02729; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:25:50 -0800 (PST) env-from (jwm@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU) Message-Id: <200002160425.UAA02729@soda.csua.Berkeley.edu> To: Joe Greco Cc: brooks@one-eyed-alien.net (Brooks Davis), peter@netplex.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Filesystem size limit? In-reply-to: Message from Joe Greco of "Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:28:40 CST." <200002160328.VAA02580@aurora.sol.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:25:50 -0800 From: John Milford Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Joe Greco wrote: > > > > Joe seem to want one. This size is certaintly within the reach of an > > ISP now, and disks just keep getting bigger. My administrative bias is > > that partitioning for a reason other then policy should be avoided and > > thus I'd love to see filesystem size support keep ahead of volume sizes > > where possiable. That said, unless someone gives me a very substantial > > amount of money to build a cluster at work, I'm not going to be building > > any TB file systems for a few more years. > > Well, I just wanted the thrill of it. > > I should be building additional machines throughout the year. If anyone is > seriously interested in work on terabyte filesystem issues, I may be able > to shanghai one for a month or two and provide access to it. I may even be > able to push it over the 2TB mark (barely). I do not have the > qualifications or need to be doing this myself, though, alas. > > 72GB disks will be available later this year. Expect 2.6TB servers. :-) > I will assert that it is insanity to build and use a 1TB UFS for small files (~ 2.5e8 inodes or 32GB) at least with the current technology. Maybe I am wrong, if anyone thinks so feel free to tell me. Having said this I think that Matt's idea of increasing the effective sector size may be way to go. Does this sound resonable to everyone? I have my doubts about whether I could get something like this done in finite time given my current schedule, but I wil begin looking at it. Matt, Correct me if I am wrong, but the sector size is what has to change, and not just the block size. This being true it would seem that if we wanted 2048TB in a FS, we the minimum fragment size would be 1MB (the virtual sector size) as there would be no way of addressing anything smaller. As a side note, would this cause big problems for the VM system as suddenly it has to page to/from files in chunks of 256 pages? Or is this fairly well isolated in the code? --John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message