From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outrelay06.libero.it ([212.52.84.110]:33219 "EHLO outrelay06.libero.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933074AbaJUQkX (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:40:23 -0400 Message-ID: <54468C73.1070108@inwind.it> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:40:19 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: strange 3.16.3 problem References: <201410181454.19375.russell@coker.com.au> <54426C16.5030206@pobox.com> <201410191041.42013.russell@coker.com.au> <54454858.8010802@pobox.com> <54456EB0.9020503@inwind.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/21/2014 11:50 AM, Duncan wrote: > Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:21:04 +0200 as > excerpted: > [...] >> > >> > Could this be related to the inode overflow in 32 bit system (see >> > inode_cache options) ? If so running a 64bit "ls -i" should work.... > Good point. Russell might just owe you a beverage of choice. =:^) > > The inode_cache mount option isn't recommended for any bitness. Hi Ducan, could you elaborate this sentence ? From my understanding inode_cache is *needed* on 32bit system in order to avoid inode number overflow. Why are you saying that it is not recommended ? Even if there are bugs, these have to be corrected. A bugs cannot be a reason to remove a needed option. Inode exhaustion is worse than a slowness... Otherwise BTRFS would be not suitable to a 32 bit system... But please tell me your opinion because may be I misunderstood something... BR G.Baroncelli -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5