linux-kernel - RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB

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]

Message-ID: <17995.49602.427417.500049@notabene.brown>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 12:45:22 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	"Jeff Zheng" <Jeff.Zheng@...ace.com>
Cc:	"Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB

On Thursday May 17, Jeff.Zheng@...ace.com wrote:
> 
> > The only difference of any significance between the working 
> > and non-working configurations is that in the non-working, 
> > the component devices are larger than 2Gig, and hence have 
> > sector offsets greater than 32 bits.
> 
> Do u mean 2T here?, but in both configuartion, the component devices are
> larger than 2T (2.25T&5.5T).

Yes, I meant 2T, and yes, the components are always over 2T.  So I'm
at a complete loss.  The raid0 code follows the same paths and does
the same things and uses 64bit arithmetic where needed.

So I have no idea how there could be a difference between these two
cases.  

I'm at a loss...

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/