[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AA97652.4010802@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:57:38 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC V3] ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block
files to < 2^32
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2009 16:16 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Any suggestions on the naming issues? (what's the official name for a
>> "not-extent-based-file?")
>
> I've always used "block mapped" (i.e. mapped block-by-block) vs.
> "extent mapped".
>
>> However, Ric just ran a massive fs_mark test on a 60T filesystem that he
>> created with "mke2fs" (no extents and no journal - accidentally) and we
>> got no corruption even without this patch.
>>
>> I need to see if a filesystem w/o the extents feature (at all, vs. some
>> old-format files on an extents fs) never even tries to allocate past
>> 2^32; I didn't think so, but now not so sure.
>
> Well, it may depend a lot on which inodes are in use. That will set the
> goal block, and may prevent any above-16TB allocations. Either you could
yep, though I had many, many inodes in the high groups ...
Problem is I don't quite trust debugfs etc to get it right, so when I
see < 32 bits, I'm not sure if it's really there, or if the
reporting/debug tool wrapped it ;)
-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