| To: | Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2 Terabyte File System Size Limitation |
| From: | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 4 Sep 2000 17:37:02 +0100 |
| Cc: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, "Davida, Joe" <Joe_Davida@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Tweedie <sct@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <39AFC301.90EEC7D0@xxxxxxxxxxx>; from cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 09:53:54AM -0500 |
| References: | <09D1E9BD9C30D311919200A0C9DD5C2C02536F84@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000901141936.A10785@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <39AFBB10.48C59783@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20000901163556.A14222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <39AFC301.90EEC7D0@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2i |
Hi, On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Russell Cattelan wrote: > So I haven't gone and actually looked at code but given the only way to get to > 16TB is through a volume manager, the process or re-mapping requests > will bring any individual device under the 2^40 limit but still allow > indexing at > the ll_rw_block level up to 16TB. No. LVMs still get passed 512-byte indexed requests. A LVM exports a block device, and that block device is just as much subject to the 2TB limit as the physical block devices underneath it are. The fact that the LVM device is a virtual device, not a physical one, does not make a difference, sadly. Cheers, Stephen |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE - xfs/stress, Tim Shimmin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2 Terabyte File System Size Limitation - More like 16TB??, William L. Jones |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2 Terabyte File System Size Limitation, Russell Cattelan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2 Terabyte File System Size Limitation, William L. Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |