From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:04:29 -0500 Message-ID: <44DB3CED.7080802@sandeen.net> References: <1155172843.3161.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060809234019.c8a730e3.akpm@osdl.org> <44DB203A.6050901@garzik.org> <44DB25C1.1020807@garzik.org> <44DB27A3.1040606@garzik.org> <44DB3151.8050904@garzik.org> <44DB34FF.4000303@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from sandeen.net ([209.173.210.139]:36195 "EHLO sandeen.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161294AbWHJOEb (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:04:31 -0400 To: Roman Zippel In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Roman Zippel wrote: > I disagree. > Many developer still brag about how Linux runs on about everything, but > it's little steps like this, which make it more and more a joke. It does still "run" on most everything but it's naive to think that you can do anything and everything on 10-year-old hardware. Choose ext3 and Linux still runs just fine. And honestly I doubt that ext4 will show much problem either. ext4 is being developed primarily to address scaling issues at the high end of the storage spectrum. If you're concerned about carrying 64-bit containers, just use ext3, and be happy with your 32-bit, < 16TB filesystems, I'd say. -Eric