| To: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS) |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:43:21 +0200 |
| Cc: | Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Yocum <yocum@xxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philippine Linux Users' Group Mailing List" <plug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <200109051536.f85FaOO05864@jen.americas.sgi.com>; from lord@sgi.com on Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:36:24AM -0500 |
| References: | <jijo@leathercollection.ph> <200109051536.f85FaOO05864@jen.americas.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote: > This is not a raid5 thing, it is a filesystem size issue, once you get > above 1 Tbyte in filesystem size then xfs inode numbers (which are really > a disk address) can take more than 32 bits. Since lots of linux code, > including NFS, does not cope with this, we need to change things in xfs Since 2.4.5 or so mainstream 2.4 has the fh_to_dentry/dentry_to_fh super block interfaces. They are currently only used by reiserfs to handle their equivalent of 64bit inodes; but XFS could use them too to at least avoid problems with NFS for the big file systems. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | GPL and DMAPI, James A Goodwin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS), Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS), Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS), Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |