I apologize for bothering the list, but the information I have found
is contradictory.
According to
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs2/dist/documentation/ocfs2_faq.html#LIMITS
, the maximum volume size is 16TB.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems#Limits
, it's
Is it possible to run an OCFS2 file system on top of Linux software RAID?
Here is my situation. I have four identical disk chassis that perform
hardware RAID internally. Each chassis has a pair of fiber channel
ports, and I can assign the same LUN to both ports. I want to connect
all of these c
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions about OCFS2 and Linux
software RAID
(http://www.mail-archive.com/ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com/msg03740.html).
In evaluating OCFS2 as a candidate for my application, I have a couple
more questions.
1) According to the FAQ
(http://oss.oracle.com/projects/
OK, I realize this is a loaded question, but I really am interested in
some feedback.
I am preparing to create a new OCFS2 cluster -- several of them,
actually -- and I have the luxury of choosing my Linux distribution.
I am agnostic on this, save for a slight bias against Fedora Core
(and, by imp
Hello. I am experimenting with OCFS2 on a brand new 10GigE iSCSI SAN.
It looks pretty good so far -- I am seeing sustained (direct I/O)
read speeds of 1300+ MB/sec -- except for one problem: I need a
single partition to hold much more than 16 TB.
I am running into the same issue described by th
Hello. I am experimenting with OCFS2 on Suse Linux Enterprise Server
11 Service Pack 1.
I am performing various stress tests. My current exercise involves
writing to files using a shared-writable mmap() from two nodes. (Each
node mmaps and writes to different files; I am not trying to access
th
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Brian Kroth wrote:
>
> I don't believe OCFS2 can currently support any logical volume manager
> other than a simple concatenation (and even then it's with extreme
> caution). The overhead involved in the lower software layer doing
> striping needs to somehow be co
My O/S is Suse Linux Enteprise Server 11 Service Pack 1.
My SCSI device is a hardware iSCSI RAID chassis. I have done a
variety of reads and writes to this device without any problems, and
there are no network or I/O errors in any logs.
The steps I took:
1) mkfs.ocfs2 -N 4 -b 4k -C 512k -J bloc
Hi, Juergen. I found your message from back in April while
researching the same issue.
> i'm pretty lost at the moment, as there's nothing i can find via google
> regarding the "core" problem:
> 1271072439 cpg_joi...@934: Opening control device
> 1271072439 cpg_joi...@938: Error opening control d
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Joel Becker wrote:
>
> 51-ocfs2.rules is in the ocfs2-tools tarball and the packages we
> build ourselves. I'm guessing the Debian packager just missed it.
Indeed. I have filed a bug with Debian:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587285
T
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Garcia, Raymundo
wrote:
> Hello… it was put under my attention that a partition we have in one of our
> production system was displaying wrong size with df command…. 123 GB… but in
> fact the size of all the files is a mere 15 GB…. What is going on? Shall we
> use
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Sunil Mushran wrote:
>
>
> ocfs2 is a journaled file system. But it is also a clustered file system.
> So it cannot arbitrarily delete orphaned files because they could still be
> in use on another node.
Ah, interesting... So I have a dumb question:
If a deleted
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:24 AM, wrote:
>
> So we first wondered how to automate this, because we'd have had to align the
> partitions on quite a few LUNs (more than 40).
> Since you'd have to use the expert options of fdisk, we did'nt find a quick
> solution with sfdisk, though with some further
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:29 AM, wrote:
>
> Hm, as far as I understood, it's not a matter of "reserving enough space for
> alignment", but the alignment has to exactly match the stripe size of your
> shared disk, in our case, an EMC CLARiion LUN.
Yes, the alignment needs to match. But if a parti
Since EL6 is based on 2.6.32, and SLES 11 SP1 is based on 2.6.32, and
Ubuntu Lucid LTS is based on 2.6.32...
...maybe there is a case for getting this sort of extremely useful
feature into the 2.6.32 trunk? (The "no space left on device" problem
is arguably a bug anyway...)
Just a thought from t
What version is the NFS mount? ("cat /proc/mounts" on the NFS client)
NFSv2 only allowed 64 bits in the file handle. With the
"subtree_check" option on the NFS server, 32 of those bits are used
for the subtree check, leaving only 32 for the inode. (This is from
memory; I may have the exact numbers
16 matches
Mail list logo
