[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4641E708.1090109@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:21:44 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
CC: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Creating a >32bit blocks filesystem.
Valerie Clement wrote:
> Jose R. Santos wrote:
>> I think this has more to do with the fact that I'm on a 32bit
>> architecture and there are still a couple places where blocks are
>> represented using "unsigned long". I'm trying to get access to a 64bit
>> arch to confirm this.
>>
>> -JRS
>>
> Oh, I didn't catch that you use a 32-bit system.
> On 32-bit architectures, the page cache index size imposes a 16TB limit
> on the filesystem size (with 4KB blocksize). So you need a 64-bit system
> for your test.
> Valérie
hm, the mount never should have gotten far enough to fail due to this,
should it have?
Jose, what exactly failed? I see references to debugfs failing, but
also kernel logs...
Things like debugfs will have issues with very large block devices due
to maximum file size restrictions on 32-bit platforms, due to the page
cache issue Valerie mentions... But trying to open it should give EFBIG
I'd think?
And mounting such a filesystem on a 32-bit system should also get
rejected early (and cleanly).
Jose, you mentioned that some blocks are still "unsigned long" on
32-bits... they shouldn't be, the LBD work should have fixed all those
long ago. But there is still the 16TB page cache limit in force.
-Eric
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists