Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Alex Elder put forth on 4/9/2010 5:01 PM:
>> OK, it's been about two months since Eric proposed this, and
>> I'm finally getting around to writing up a response.
>> I discussed this with a few people within SGI, and there were
>> two main concerns that were mentioned:
>> - This may be a problem for some NFS clients
>> - This may be a problem for some backup software
>> We don't believe there are any direct issues with DMF or CXFS
>> in making this change.
>> I understand that the change is only in the default behavior,
>> and that forcing 32-bit inodes will still be an available
> Hi Alex,
> How will this change affect those people running 32bit CPUs and kernels, if
> at all? Or is this change related not to the word width of the hardware/OS
> but to the size of the filesystem and/or number of files/inodes contained
> within? You mentioned possible issues with NFS. Are there any issues with
Recent 32-bit kernels can handle 64-bit inodes.
Userspace is a different issue; it -can- certainly cope, but many userspace
apps don't use the 64-bit interfaces, stat64 and friends.
These should get fixed, IMHO, as did the large file problems in years past ...
> Intel Atom (32bit x86) CPUs and XFS on multi terabyte disks are popular with
> many folks running Linux based media PCs, streaming their ripped DVDs and
> other large media files from their XFS filesystems. I don't personally do
> this, but I also have 32bit only systems that won't be replaced with 64bit
> CPUs for some time to come.
Multi-terabyte on a 32-bit atom with 2G memory is -really- pushing it
in terms of ability to run repair - at least depending on the value of
"multi". Swap helps I guess but massive filesystems on underpowered
boxes is a classic example of enough rope to hang oneself, IMHO. :)
Note, as Alex said, you can always force the mount to stay in 32 bits.
And for smaller filesystems, no inode would be past 32 bits anyway.