Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Contraint\s+to\s+Blksize\s+512\?\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: "Holger Smolinski" <HSmolinski@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:37:01 +0200

I tried to use XFS with devices of sector sizes larger than 512 Byte and failed. Apparently there are dependencies to a fixed blocksize of 512 Byte all over the code of XFS. Are these contraints una

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg01083.html (7,124 bytes)

2. Re: Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:54:48 -0500

Yes, unfortunately XFS is built around assumptions about 512 byte block sizes. There was an internal project to clean this up which was shelved a while back, I will ask around and see if the code st

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg01085.html (8,413 bytes)

3. Re: Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: "Holger Smolinski" <HSmolinski@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:49:13 +0200

over imagine done For sure we would have incompatible layouts between XFS(512) and XFS(4k). I'd imagine sth like replacing any 512 in the XFS code by blksize(device) or blksize(xfs-type) rsp. Do you

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg01087.html (8,019 bytes)

4. Re: Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:02:11 -0500

I have just taken a look at an old project which was doing exactly this, XFS was extended to be runtime switchable between blocksizes. The code is against an old version of Irix, so it is not so eas

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg01104.html (9,076 bytes)

5. Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: "Holger Smolinski" <HSmolinski@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:37:01 +0200

I tried to use XFS with devices of sector sizes larger than 512 Byte and failed. Apparently there are dependencies to a fixed blocksize of 512 Byte all over the code of XFS. Are these contraints una

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02253.html (7,124 bytes)

6. Re: Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:54:48 -0500

Yes, unfortunately XFS is built around assumptions about 512 byte block sizes. There was an internal project to clean this up which was shelved a while back, I will ask around and see if the code st

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02255.html (8,413 bytes)

7. Re: Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: "Holger Smolinski" <HSmolinski@xxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:49:13 +0200

over imagine done For sure we would have incompatible layouts between XFS(512) and XFS(4k). I'd imagine sth like replacing any 512 in the XFS code by blksize(device) or blksize(xfs-type) rsp. Do you

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02257.html (8,019 bytes)

8. Re: Contraint to Blksize 512? (score: 1)

Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:02:11 -0500

I have just taken a look at an old project which was doing exactly this, XFS was extended to be runtime switchable between blocksizes. The code is against an old version of Irix, so it is not so eas

/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02274.html (9,076 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]