From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC V3] ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block files to < 2^32 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4AA97652.4010802@redhat.com> References: <4AA1920C.9040406@redhat.com> <4AA1D94F.8060703@redhat.com> <20090905164535.GL4197@webber.adilger.int> <4AA92307.4010304@redhat.com> <20090910211006.GF9372@webber.adilger.int> <4AA96CB0.3090309@redhat.com> <20090910215158.GI9372@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext4 development To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9400 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754470AbZIJV5g (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:57:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090910215158.GI9372@webber.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Sep 10, 2009 16:16 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Any suggestions on the naming issues? (what's the official name for a >> "not-extent-based-file?") > > I've always used "block mapped" (i.e. mapped block-by-block) vs. > "extent mapped". > >> However, Ric just ran a massive fs_mark test on a 60T filesystem that he >> created with "mke2fs" (no extents and no journal - accidentally) and we >> got no corruption even without this patch. >> >> I need to see if a filesystem w/o the extents feature (at all, vs. some >> old-format files on an extents fs) never even tries to allocate past >> 2^32; I didn't think so, but now not so sure. > > Well, it may depend a lot on which inodes are in use. That will set the > goal block, and may prevent any above-16TB allocations. Either you could yep, though I had many, many inodes in the high groups ... Problem is I don't quite trust debugfs etc to get it right, so when I see < 32 bits, I'm not sure if it's really there, or if the reporting/debug tool wrapped it ;) -Eric