xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mkfs.xfs doesn't detect size of storage correctly

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mkfs.xfs doesn't detect size of storage correctly
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:58:42 +0100
Cc: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <479F495E.4070700@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080129093201.GA16203@xxxxxxx> <43347.192.168.3.1.1201601702.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080129122051.GA18165@xxxxxxx> <479F440F.2060506@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20080129153337.GA20509@xxxxxxx> <479F495E.4070700@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
On 29.01.2008 09:42, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > On 29.01.2008 09:19, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> >>
> >>> A maybe important detail, i forgot to mention in the original mail is:
> >>> The machine has 8GB of RAM, so i compiled the kernel with "64bit=yes" 
> >>> (formaly x86_64), BUT(!) the userspace is 32bit or plain old i386.
> >> If you think that's the issue, I'd try compiling the above as a 32-bit
> >> binary and re-run.
> > 
> > I don't think it's an issue, i just wanted to mention it.
> > 
> > But as soon as i get home i will connect the HDD to an all 32bit system 
> > and see if it makes a difference. (I'm still undecided if i should hope 
> > that it makes a difference. ;-) )

I'm back home, and i just connected the HDD to my all 32bit system.
No difference.






Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.


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