| To: | Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit? |
| From: | david@xxxxxxx |
| Date: | Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:45:19 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20100327100618.71e24a0a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003251609160.12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100327100618.71e24a0a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Emmanuel Florac wrote: Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT) vous ?criviez:is this just rounding error combined with the 1000=1k vs 1024=1k marketing stuff, or is there some limit I am bumping into here.This isn't an xfs limit, I've set up several hundred big xfs FS for more than 5 years (13 to 76 TB) and never saw that. It must be a bug in df or elsewhere. What distribution is this? and architecture? debian 5 on amd64.at this point I'm fairly sure that it's just rounding error combined with the difference between 10^9 and 2^30 definitions of TB David Lang |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, Steve Costaras |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Always update the log tail on disk in sync, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, Steve Costaras |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 128TB filesystem limit?, Peter Grandi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |