xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Volume too big

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Volume too big
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:26:26 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801192200390.4780@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801191650260.4780@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> <4792223E.7080805@sandeen.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801191808100.4780@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> <47926087.3020600@sandeen.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801192200390.4780@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jan 19 2008 14:41, Eric Sandeen wrote:

>> It's possible that btrfs can cope with this somehow - but also quite
>> possible that it's just missing the right checks :)
>>
> I am not sure why Linux would be limited to 16 TB. If LBD is on,
> things are 64 bit, so I would expect to have at least access to
> 2 exabyte.

64-bit sector addressing, but there is a 32-bit index into the (4k)
pagecache.

2^32 * 4096 is 16T

So an address space has a 16T limit.

Even mkfs, if it needs to write past 16T (and I think mkfs.btrfs doesn't
need that...) will have trouble, if the device is > 16T - unless mkfs
uses direct IO.

-Eric


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