LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Complete CCNA, CCNP & Red Hat Certification Training Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
User Name
Password
2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards This forum is for the 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2015. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 10th.


Notices


View Poll Results: Linux Filesystem of the Year
Btrfs 36 9.00%
ext3 18 4.50%
ext4 289 72.25%
F2FS 2 0.50%
JFS 5 1.25%
OverlayFS 1 0.25%
Reiser4 3 0.75%
XFS 26 6.50%
ZFS 20 5.00%
Voters: 400. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2016, 04:24 AM   #46
DaneM
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Chico, CA, USA
Distribution: Linux Mint
Posts: 848

Rep: Reputation: 107Reputation: 107

It looks like ext4 supports filesystems up to 1EB (=1024PB; 1PB=1024TB), and single files up to 16TB because it supports 48-bit address mapping. (64-bit mapping is on the way, but who has more than 1024 petabytes of storage?) That being said, the ext2fsprogs developers have only implemented filesystems of up to 16TB, as noted above. So, as a filesystem, ext4 can make things (practically) as big as you want, but the programs that let you make an ext4 filesystem are a bit unfinished, and limit its capabilities.

http://kernelnewbies.org/Ext4

Last edited by DaneM; 02-06-2016 at 04:26 AM.
 
Old 02-06-2016, 04:37 AM   #47
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,004

Rep: Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620Reputation: 1620
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
It looks like ext4 supports filesystems up to 1EB (=1024PB; 1PB=1024TB), and single files up to 16TB because it supports 48-bit address mapping. (64-bit mapping is on the way, but who has more than 1024 petabytes of storage?) That being said, the ext2fsprogs developers have only implemented filesystems of up to 16TB, as noted above. So, as a filesystem, ext4 can make things (practically) as big as you want, but the programs that let you make an ext4 filesystem are a bit unfinished, and limit its capabilities.

http://kernelnewbies.org/Ext4
It seems that the tools (on 32 bit systems at least, google results didn't confirm whether 64 bit systems were ever affected) didn't support anything over 16TB until fairly recently, at least in Debian (and other) Stable terms. The problem being with 32bits times 4096 blocks only being 16TB instead of the 64bits times 4096 block size that the file system itself supported.
It is funny how often these things happen where the supposed limit turns out not to be the actual limit due to some design decision or another.
 
Old 02-06-2016, 05:10 AM   #48
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 4,602

Rep: Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241
Either way, the filesystem got recreated. 64 bit Ext4 has a limit of 1Eib.. I do think the 32 bit limits are written into the on-disk format which would require recreation to overcome.

xfs is recommended for larger filesystems.

If btrfs ever gets the bugs out, I think it would be a better choice as it has better error detection and recovery.

At present, XFS appears best. (though a raid0 would be rather fragile - failure of any disk will destroy the filesystem).

Last edited by jpollard; 02-06-2016 at 05:21 AM.
 
Old 02-06-2016, 12:37 PM   #49
DaneM
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Chico, CA, USA
Distribution: Linux Mint
Posts: 848

Rep: Reputation: 107Reputation: 107
RAID0 has too much "pucker factor", for me. :-D For serious storage, I prefer RAID6.
 
Old 02-06-2016, 01:28 PM   #50
trosdejos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
RAID0 has too much "pucker factor", for me. :-D For serious storage, I prefer RAID6.
I know it. This 20 TB Storage is the third Backup of our files. No problem.
 
Old 02-06-2016, 01:40 PM   #51
marcelinomd
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2016
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Btrfs

No doubt
 
Old 02-06-2016, 08:29 PM   #52
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 4,602

Rep: Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241Reputation: 1241
I would have agreed with you on btrfs... except for the bugs in it.
 
Old 02-09-2016, 01:41 PM   #53
hydrurga
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Distribution: Linux Mint 18 MATE
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 341Reputation: 341Reputation: 341Reputation: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
i very recently read --somewhere-- that ext3 is EOL, but ext4 will continue to support it.
not entirely sure how that will work out, does it mean i can still format to ext3 via ext4?
in any case, when i started using linux 4years ago, ext4 was a bit of a gamble, but nowadays it's just standard, imho.
Ext2,3 and 4 are all essentially the same filesystem with different features enabled. Even if a specific ext3 filesystem driver may disappear, the ext4 filesystem driver will still cope with mounting and organising ext 2 and ext 3 filesystems. ext3 isn't going anywhere.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-09-2016, 02:31 PM   #54
astrogeek
Moderator
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware [64]-X.{0|1|2|37|-current} ::12<=X<=14, FreeBSD_10{.0|.1|.2}
Posts: 3,876
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998Reputation: 1998
ext4 still does it for me.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: How Last Year's Linux Events Played Out This Year LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-15-2012 07:12 PM
LXer: Year X is NOT the Year of the Linux Desktop LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-09-2009 04:30 PM
Best Linux Distro for a 5 year old desktop and a 3 year old laptop silencer07 Linux - General 15 07-25-2008 04:44 PM
LXer: New Year 2007 - The year of GNU/Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-01-2007 04:21 AM
DISCUSSION: Virtual Filesystem: Building a Linux Filesystem from an Ordinary File mchirico LinuxAnswers Discussion 0 10-28-2004 11:35 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration