From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:48:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4497C485.7000400@garzik.org>
References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com>	<4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org>	<20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int>	<44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org>	<1149885135.5776.100.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0606091344290.5498@g5.osdl.org>
	<4497927F.4070307@fc-cn.com> <4497B126.4000408@bull.net>
	<4497B230.5000508@garzik.org> <4497BE00.1040409@bull.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>,
	"ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, alex@clusterfs.com,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>, Qi Yong <qiyong@fc-cn.com>
Return-path: <ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>
In-Reply-To: <4497BE00.1040409@bull.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=ext2-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>> Qi Yong wrote:
>>>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> When is the Linux syscall interface enough?  When should we just
>>>>>> bump it
>>>>>> and cut out all the compatibility interfaces?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we don't; we let people configure certain obsolete bits out (a.out
>>>>>> support etc), but we keep it in the tree despite the indirection
>>>>>> cost to
>>>>>> maintain multiple interfaces etc.
>>>>>>   
>>>>> Right. WE ADD NEW SYSTEM CALLS. WE DO NOT EXTEND THE OLD ONES IN
>>>>> WAYS THAT MIGHT BREAK OLD USERS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your point was exactly what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, where did that 2TB limit number come from? Afaik, it should be
>>>>> 16TB for a 4kB filesystem, no?
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>> Partition tables describe partitions in units of one sector.
>>>> 2^(32+9) = 2T
>>>>
>>>> To prevent integer overflow, we should use only 31 bits of a 32-bit
>>>> integer.
>>>> 2^(31+12) = 8T
>>>>
>>>> There's _terrible_ hacks to really get to 16T.
>>>>
>>>> -- qiyong
>>>>
>>> IMHO, a simple solution is to use "Logical Volume Manager" instead of
>>> partition
>>> manager: we create 64bit filesystem in a Logical Volume, not in a
>>> partition.
>> That doesn't solve anything, if you are not using a 64bit filesystem.
> 
> Sorry, I don't undestand why ???
> 
> You can use 32bit filesystem too, but you limit the size of the logical volume
> to be compatible with the filesystem you use. LVM allows to create several 32bit
> volumes on a big (> 8T) disk (if exists)

Let's review the thread:

qiyong: <these limits> exist in the filesystem
you: bust those limits with LVM!

I think you are misunderstanding the subthread.


>>> "partitioning is obsolete" ;-)
>> LVM is nothing but a partition manager...
> 
> LVM is more than a partition manager:

I am well aware of what LVM2 and device mapper can do.

	Jeff