| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: df and "Value too large for defined data type" |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:19:14 +0000 |
| Cc: | James Pearson <james-p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1077904776.7024.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from sandeen@xxxxxxx on Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:59:36AM -0600 |
| References: | <403DF97D.C717302E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1077904776.7024.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:59:36AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > the 2.4 statfs interface is 32 bits; I think that until you upgrade the > server to 2.6, and (as Christoph tells me) you'll also need a very > recent glibc to take advantage of it. > > On a large filesystem, xfs easily wraps around the ints in the statfs > structure. Well, in the case of free inodes we might be a bit over-eager and should just return some random lower value. Not that it really matters with dynamically allocated inodes.. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: df and "Value too large for defined data type", Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | 2.4.25 XFS patches?, Jeremy Jackson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: df and "Value too large for defined data type", Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | 2.4.25 XFS patches?, Jeremy Jackson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |