linux-ext4 - Testing ext4 persistent preallocation patches for 64 bit features

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:18:01 +0530
From:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com, alex@...sterfs.com,
	suzuki@...ibm.com
Subject: Testing ext4 persistent preallocation patches for 64 bit features

I plan to test the persistent preallocation patches on a huge sparse
device, to know if >32 bit physical block numbers (upto 48bit) behave as
expected. I have following questions for this and will appreciate
suggestions here:

a) What should be the sparse device size which I should use for testing?
Should a size of > 8TB (say, 100 TB) be enough ?
The physical device (backing store device) size I can have is upto 70GB.

b) How do I test allocation of >32 bit physical block numbers ? I can
not fill > 8TB, since the physical storage available with me is just
70GB.

c) Do I need to put some hack in the filesystem code for above (to
allocate >32 bit physical block numbers) ?

Any further ideas on how to test this will help. Thanks!

--
Regards,
Amit Arora
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html