| To: | Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS) |
| From: | Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:01:44 +0800 (PHT) |
| In-reply-to: | <200109051536.f85FaOO05864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 at 10:36, 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 so that a larger inode is used, this reduces the number of > addressing bits required down to below 32 bits again. So on filesystems <1TB you can safely use the default of 256 bytes? --> Jijo -- Federico Sevilla III :: jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc. GnuPG Key: <http://jijo.leathercollection.ph/jijo.gpg> |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs, Peter Wächtler |
|---|---|
| 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), Steve Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: On RAID, inode size, stripe size (was: Playing around with NFS+XFS), Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |