I meant 50 tb... Although gb is also true, I suppose. :-) Sent from my Nexus 10. On Oct 18, 2013 1:21 AM, "Andrew Dahl" <droidjd at gmail.com> wrote: > A variety of reasons. The biggest one for me is stability. XFS has been > doing huge filesystems (>50gb) for years. ext4 hasn't. Today, I'd probably > trust ext4 to do a 16 TB fs, but I'd still prefer XFS. > > For larger filesystem, ext4 performance degrades rapidly while XFS > continues to scale well. > > Here's a forum discussing this very topic: > http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=1200201 > > Sent from my Nexus 10. > On Oct 17, 2013 10:36 PM, "Tony Yarusso" <tonyyarusso at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM, B-o-B De Mars <mr.chew.baka at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Up until now all my current file systems are <= 16TB, >> > so ext4 has not been an issue. >> >> I'm curious why it's an issue beyond that point. This indicates that >> ext4 has supported filesystems larger than 16TB for nearly two years: >> >> http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/e2fsprogs-release.html#1.42 >> >> And Wikipedia says it now supports volumes up to 1EiB, or >> 1,048,576TiB. See also >> >> https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto#Bigger_File_System_and_File_Sizes >> . >> >> - Tony >> _______________________________________________ >> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >> tclug-list at mn-linux.org >> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20131018/ec505d47/attachment.html>