[Lustre-discuss] large ost and fsck

Steden Klaus Klaus.Steden at thomson.net
Mon Oct 20 13:16:39 PDT 2008

Hi Mag,

fsck'ing a Lustre volume doesn't take any more or less time than fsck'ing a traditional ext2/ext3 volume. I've had to run fsck a few times over the years on 2 TB volumes on a DDN SAN, and depending on how much needs correcting, it usually takes about 15-20 minutes from start to finish.

The only real constraint with OST size is the Linux max file system size (2 TB if memory serves). I don't know if there's a performance benefit or penalty if you have multiple, smaller OSTs ... likely Andreas will be able to shed some light.


-----Original Message-----
From: lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org on behalf of Mag Gam
Sent: Sun 10/19/2008 6:29 AM
To: Lustre discuss
Subject: [Lustre-discuss] large ost and fsck
We typically debate weather to create a large OST or smaller OSTs
(100GB). We prefer large OSTs (1 TB) because the ease of management
but how would fsck work? Would it take a long time? Also, if a large
OST is preferred is it possible to consolidate a smaller OSTs into a
larger one?

Lustre-discuss mailing list
Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list