linux-kernel - Re: How to handle >16TB devices on 32 bit hosts ??

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: <871voewm6y.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:16:05 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to handle >16TB devices on 32 bit hosts ??

Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> writes:
>
> I think the point is that for those people who want to use > 16TB
> devices on 32-bit platforms (e.g. embedded/appliance systems) the
> choice is between "completely non-functional" and "uses a bit more
> memory per page", and the answer is pretty obvious.

It's not just more memory per page, but also worse code all over the
VM. long long 32bit code is generally rather bad, especially on
register constrained x86.

But I think the fsck problem is a show stopper here anyways.
Enabling a setup that cannot handle IO errors wouldn't 
be really a good idea.

In fact this problem already hits before 16TB on 32bit.

Unless people rewrite fsck to use /dev/shm >4GB swapping
(or perhaps use JFS which iirc had a way to use the file system
itself as fsck scratch space)

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/