[Top] [All Lists]

Re: inode64 and Firefox

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: inode64 and Firefox
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:35:32 -0500
Cc: aurfalien <aurfalien@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51DC198C.70106@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <EA658AFF-6AEC-41D1-BA40-4103BEF7FD5E@xxxxxxxxx> <51DC1600.7080906@xxxxxxxxxxx> <C7F53623-AA6A-4FD2-90A6-52BBA6562D10@xxxxxxxxx> <51DC198C.70106@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
On 7/9/2013 9:09 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/9/13 9:08 AM, aurfalien wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 7/9/13 8:37 AM, aurfalien wrote:
>>>> Before I dig deeper, wondering if any one has issues running Firefox v22 
>>>> from an XFS file system mounted using inode64 option?
>>> I've not tried it, but first question - 32-bit or 64-bit firefox?
>> Its 32 bit FF.  Thunderbird also has issues.  Too bad :(
> Ok, below was for 64-bit, even!
> I'd file a bug w/ them, it can't be that hard to fix.  Modern filesystems 
> have 64 bit inodes, they should handle it!
> -Eric
>> Stuck in the stone age.  Got a 24TB fs functioning as a home dir for ~100 
>> pplz that I would like to modernize.

Is XFS being mounted via NFS or Samba?  Do your server and client
versions of these support 64 bit inodes?  If these are 32 bit Windows
clients I think it's pretty certain they don't/can't handle 64 bit
inodes.  Thus this may not be strictly a FF/TB problem.  We need more


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