Re: BIG files & file systems

From: Andreas Dilger (
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 02:52:36 EST

On Aug 06, 2002 03:24 -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Andreas Dilger writes:
> > Having 16kB block size would allow a maximum of 64TB for a single
> > filesystem. The per-file limit would be over 256TB.
> Um, yeah, 64 TB of data with 192 TB of holes!
> I really don't think you should count a file
> that won't fit on your filesystem.

Well, no worse than the original posting which had reiserfs supporting
something-EB files and 16TB filesystems. Don't think I didn't consider
this at the time of posting.

> > In reality, we will probably implement extent-based allocation for
> > ext3 when we start getting into filesystems that large, which has been
> > discussed among the ext2/ext3 developers already.
> It's nice to have a simple filesystem. If you turn ext2/ext3
> into an XFS/JFS competitor, then what is left? Just minix fs?

Note that I said ext3 in the above sentence, and not ext2. I'm not in
favour of adding all of the high-end features (htree, extents, etc) into
ext2 at all. It makes absolutely no sense to have a multi-TB filesystem
running ext2, and then the fsck time takes a day. It is desirable to
put some minimum support into ext2 for newer features when it makes
sense and does not complicate the code, but not for everything.

Cheers, Andreas

Andreas Dilger

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:30 EST