Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id g0TKwB125414 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:58:11 -0800 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (pneumatic-tube.sgi.com [204.94.214.22]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0TKw6d25392 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:58:06 -0800 Received: from zeus-e8.americas.sgi.com (zeus-e8.americas.sgi.com [128.162.8.103]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id LAA02146 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:59:04 -0800 (PST) mail_from (sandeen@sgi.com) Received: from poppy-e185.americas.sgi.com (poppy-e185.americas.sgi.com [128.162.185.207]) by zeus-e8.americas.sgi.com (8.9.3/americas-smart-nospam1.1) with ESMTP id NAA204283; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:56:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from stout.americas.sgi.com (stout.americas.sgi.com [128.162.187.5]) by poppy-e185.americas.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/SGI-server-1.7) with ESMTP id NAA50771; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:56:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Reduce XFS footprint (was Re: TAKE - remove a function xfs added to filemap.c From: Eric Sandeen To: Andi Kleen Cc: Nathan Scott , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <20020129202509.A31370@wotan.suse.de> References: <200201291751.g0THp897004750@scare.vieo.com> <20020129194001.A16401@wotan.suse.de> <20020129202509.A31370@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release) Date: 29 Jan 2002 13:56:41 -0600 Message-Id: <1012334201.5905.25.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1450 Lines: 39 On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 13:25, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:40:01PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > This patch does it. It's very simple and clean. > > Saves another 18K on a xfs with BIG_FILESYSTEMS and BIG_FILES disabled. > > Oops. The patch had a silly mistake. The dep_mbools were missing the third > parameter. It wasn't noticed by make oldconfig, but the more advanced > configurators notice. > > Here is an update. Should probably also write some help text. Yep, I just saw that. And FWIW, the stated limit for the filesystem size w/o XFS_BIG_FILESYSTEMS isn't quite right*. I think these are correct (these are internal XFS limitations): File size: o Without XFS_BIG_FILES, the max filesize is 1<<40, or 2TiB. o With XFS_BIG_FILES, the max filesize is 1<<63-1. However, Linux can only handle 1<<(32+PAGE_SHIFT), or (2GiB * PAGE_SIZE), or 16TiB for machines w/ 4k pages. This limit has been added to the current Linux XFS code as well. Filesystem size: o Without XFS_BIG_FILESYSTEMS, the max filesystem size is the (filesystem block size * INT_MAX), or on x86 w/ 4k block sizes, 2^43, or about 8 TiB (which is bigger than Linux can handle). o With XFS_BIG_FILESYSTEMS, it's 9 exabytes, I believe. (again, larger than Linux can handle). -Eric *Not that it matters, since Linux can't do > 2T anyway... -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@sgi.com SGI, Inc.