xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Volume too big

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Volume too big
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:01:41 +0100 (CET)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47926087.3020600@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801191650260.4780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4792223E.7080805@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801191808100.4780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47926087.3020600@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 19 2008 14:41, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Jan 19 2008 10:15, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> 16:51 localhost:~ # strace -e mount mount /dev/md0 /mnt
>>>> mount("/dev/md0", "/mnt", "xfs", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) = -1 E2BIG (Argument 
>>>> list too long)
>>>> mount: Argument list too long
>>>>
>>>> 16:51 localhost:~ # uname -a
>>>> Linux localhost 2.6.23.14-ccj63-regular #1 SMP 2007/10/26 14:17:15 UTC 
>>>> i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_LBD=y. Do I need an extra flag for mkfs?
>>> Nope; this is probably that you can't do > 16T on a 32 bit box (core
>>> linux restriction, pretty much)
>>> get an x86_64, I think :)
>> 
>> Hm, JFS fails too.
>> But btrfs 0.11 can mount it.
>
>It's possible that btrfs can cope with this somehow - but also quite
>possible that it's just missing the right checks :)
>
I am not sure why Linux would be limited to 16 TB. If LBD is on,
things are 64 bit, so I would expect to have at least access to
2 exabyte.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>