hi,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:02:49AM +0200, Ragnar Kj?rstad wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can you please apply the following patch to xfsprogs, if you have not
> alreaddy fixed it:
>
Yes, someone else has already sent that patch so its in the CVS
tree now - thanks anyway though.
>
> or maybe make it a unsigned long long right away..
>
There doesn't seem to be any point in doing that since the ioctl
returns an unsigned long (or have I missed something?). I think
your "unsigned long long" suggestion would cause an xfsprogs bug
on some 32bit platforms, no?
> Could you also indicate if there are likely to be any other problems, or
> if 1-2 TB filesystems (and above 2tb?) should work with xfs?
I don't have access to a big enough Linux system to try it I'm
afraid, but the IRIX/XFS code is obviously 64 bit clean, so we
had a good starting point for Linux/XFS - the sorts of problems
you'll encounter are likely to be issues introduced during the
port from IRIX (like the above) or existing limitations in the
Linux block device layer. So, those issues aside, you shouldn't
see any problems with XFS >2Tb. ;-)
Steve sent some mail discussing the size of XFS inode numbers in
bits a little while ago that will be of interest to you too (see
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/mail_archive/0107/msg00727.html).
cheers.
--
Nathan
|