Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch]

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <rohitseth@...>, <linux-ext4@...>
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 7:36 am

On Jan 15, 2008  23:25 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

This is exactly the kind of environment that Lustre is designed for.
Not only do you get parallel IO performance, but you can also do parallel
e2fsck on the individual filesystems when you need it.  Not that we aren't
also working on improving e2fsck performance, but 100 * 4TB e2fsck in
parallel is much better than 1 * 400TB e2fsck (probably not possible on
a system today due to RAM constraints though I haven't really done any
calculations either way).  I know customers were having RAM problems with
3 * 2TB e2fsck in parallel on a 2GB node.

Most customers these days use 2-4 4-8TB filesystems per server
(inexpensive SMP node with 2-4GB RAM instead of a single monstrous SGI box).

We have many Lustre filesystems in the 100-200TB range today, some over 1PB
already and much larger ones being planned.


Charge them for 2PB of storage, and use rsync :-).

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6..., Andreas Dilger, (Thu Jan 17, 7:36 am)
Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6..., Christoph Hellwig, (Tue Jan 15, 9:15 am)
Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6..., Christoph Hellwig, (Tue Jan 15, 9:16 am)