[Top] [All Lists]

Re: inode64 readiness testing

To: Peter Kimball <peterakimball@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: inode64 readiness testing
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:10:50 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <501A7AEB-6708-4181-AAE2-D145DC23B938@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <501A7AEB-6708-4181-AAE2-D145DC23B938@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:33:16PM -0500, Peter Kimball wrote:
> I created a blank 1GB disk image, created an XFS filesystem on that image, 
> and mounted it on a loopback device using the ino64 flag.  
> I wrote a bunch of data to the filesystem (lots of small files), 
> approximately 600MB.
> At this point, I think I have a filesystem in which inodes use 64-bit 
> addresses, even if the actual address value would fit in 32 bits.  I would 
> expect any program that can't handle 64-bit addresses to barf when trying to 
> access any data on the filesystem.

You will never not see 64-bit inodes on a filesystem that small ever.
Try to create a (sparse) 10TB loop image, and create some deep
directories in it.  This should create some larger inodes number for
you if you had it mounted with the inode64 flag.  You can verify that
by checking that the inode number returned from the stat systsem call
or from ls -i is larger than 32 bits.

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