Bug 1026510

Summary:	Request to update e2fsprogs to the 1.42 line, preferably 1.42-7 or newer
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Chris Bode <cbode>
Component:	e2fsprogs	Assignee:	Eric Sandeen <esandeen>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Filesystem QE <fs-qe>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.6	CC:	sct
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-11-04 21:42:23 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Chris Bode 2013-11-04 20:38:23 UTC

Please update the e2fsprogs version in the next RHEL 6 update to the 1.42 version family. Since the quota feature and bigalloc seem to still be stabilizing they can be disabled.

Comment 1 Eric Sandeen 2013-11-04 20:47:04 UTC

We don't generally rebase core packages in the middle of a RHEL lifecycle.

Are there particular bugs or features that you are missing?  What's the reason for the request?

Thanks,
-Eric

Comment 3 Chris Bode 2013-11-04 21:20:14 UTC

Eric,

I'm specifically looking for 64 bit filesystems, and the improvements in resize2fs and fsck performance. I haven't been able to find any problems in testing a self compiled version up to 64 TB even with intentional device path loss during writes

Comment 4 Eric Sandeen 2013-11-04 21:30:22 UTC

Thanks Chris -

RHEL6 will not support 64-bit ext4 filesystems.  We provide & test XFS at that scale.  There was a long, slow trickle of bugfixes in both kernelspace & userspace to fix ext4 filesystems > 16T, and there are no plans to make the engineering effort to get them all into RHEL6.

If you have details on resize2fs and/or fsck fixes that you think are critical, please let me know.  If it's performance vs. correctness, we'd need to weigh the risks associated w/ the change.

Thanks,
-Eric

Comment 5 Eric Sandeen 2013-11-05 15:48:38 UTC

Chris, it'd be great if you want to test RHEL7/upstream ext4 above 16T though, and if you find any issues, let us know.  :)

Thanks,
-Eric