From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:29:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1149874154.22124.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060609091327.GA3679@infradead.org> <20060609030759.48cd17a0.akpm@osdl.org> <44899653.1020007@garzik.org> <20060609154238.GN1651@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Matthew Wilcox In-Reply-To: <20060609154238.GN1651@parisc-linux.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ar Gwe, 2006-06-09 am 09:42 -0600, ysgrifennodd Matthew Wilcox: > Hang on, you're going too far. You have to enable extents with the > extent mount option. Otherwise you don't get to use them. The user > does, in fact, have a clear division, although maybe the blinky signs > aren't quite luminous enough. I'd rather the blinky sign was "ext4". It makes it clear it is a progression and it also gives everyone something to put in the features box and talk to the press about 8) > I still think making ext3 bigger than 16TB is just silly. We recently fixed a 'If the disk is 4TB in size the geometry reporting breaks and parted crashes' bug. The stuff is out there and people want to run ext3 on it or an ext3 derivative they feel they trust. Does it matter whether it is the most optimal solution, that'll sort itself out as ext3.5/ext4, reiser4, jfs, xfs etc get picked and demanded by users Alan