| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: False No space left on device error |
| From: | Jan Derfinak <ja@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:52:07 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <429E7FDA.7070307@sgi.com> |
| References: | <BE5986C67D271E4EA72B61F406AB91F29C7C86@sbapexch02.ad.corp.expertcity.com> <429E7FDA.7070307@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Eric Sandeen wrote: Hi. > you can use the undocumented/unsupported/non-production "ino64" option to > force all inodes into 64-bit range, and test them on a (smaller) scratch fs. > I expect that it'll be fine but testing is good. Can you explain difference between ino64 and inode64 options? Comments in source says: "ino64" /* force inodes into 64-bit range */ "inode64" /* inodes can be allocated anywhere */ Is it possible to explain it little bit more? There is no info in xfs.txt. Thanks. Jan -- |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS module for RHEL4, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: False No space left on device error, Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: False No space left on device error, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: False No space left on device error, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |