Bug 1026510 - Request to update e2fsprogs to the 1.42 line, preferably 1.42-7 or newer
Summary: Request to update e2fsprogs to the 1.42 line, preferably 1.42-7 or newer
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: e2fsprogs
Version: 6.6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Eric Sandeen
QA Contact: Filesystem QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-11-04 20:38 UTC by Chris Bode
Modified: 2013-11-05 15:48 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-11-04 21:42:23 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

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
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.