| To: | Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Block size. |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:47:31 +0200 |
| Cc: | Dario Brignardello <dbrignar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <11089.999606324@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>; from kaos@melbourne.sgi.com on Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:25:24PM +1000 |
| References: | <3B94BFD9.83E09CEE@sinectis.com> <11089.999606324@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:25:24PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:49:45 -0300, > Dario Brignardello <dbrignar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry for bother with a newbie question, but I didn't find the > >answer in the FAQ:-). I would like to now the reasons (technically > >speaking) for the max block size to be fixed at 4K in linux > > It is a restriction of the Linux VM subsystem, at the moment file block > size must equal hardware page size. There is work in progress to > remove the restriction, but it is kernel 2.5 code. Minor correction: it must be smaller or equal hardware block size. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: about to try RAID...., AKH |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TAKE - mount msgs, Ethan Benson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Block size., Keith Owens |
| Next by Thread: | smaller mkfs.xfs, Ethan Benson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |