| To: | Linux XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: why 9 million TB for xfs |
| From: | pg_mh@xxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi) |
| Date: | Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:21:40 +0000 |
| Fom: | pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi) |
| In-reply-to: | <005501c5f19e$680e1f90$6100040a@d3zhangyue> |
| References: | <005501c5f19e$680e1f90$6100040a@d3zhangyue> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:58:27 +0800, "meiyoutt" >>> <meiyoutt@xxxxxxxxx> said: meiyoutt> For xfs_sb.sb_dblocks is u64, so I don't know why xfs meiyoutt> limit is 9 million TB. I think 16 million of blocks meiyoutt> in xfs, so why it's 9 million TB. It is not as simple as that, and a filesystem cannot be larger than the block device on which it is stored... Thus maximum sizes depend on: * Whether the kernel is 32 or 64 bit. * Whether they are expressed in tibibytes or terabytes. * Whether the kernel IO/cache subsystem uses signed or unsigned 32/64 bit 'int's. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | why 9 million TB for xfs, meiyoutt |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: unable to use dpkg 2.6.15-rc2, evilninja@xxxxxxx |
| Previous by Thread: | why 9 million TB for xfs, meiyoutt |
| Next by Thread: | [no subject], kempston |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |