From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Brown Subject: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:45:22 +1000 Message-ID: <17995.49602.427417.500049@notabene.brown> References: <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406836C6@gazelle.ad.endace.com> <6bffcb0e0705151629j78920ca2r9337dccdfc1bb6a9@mail.gmail.com> <17994.19043.771733.453896@notabene.brown> <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406B31C5@gazelle.ad.endace.com> <17995.42562.870806.396617@notabene.brown> <659F626D666070439A4A5965CD6EBF406B33ED@gazelle.ad.endace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: message from Jeff Zheng on Thursday May 17 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Zheng Cc: Michal Piotrowski , Ingo Molnar , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thursday May 17, Jeff.Zheng@endace.com wrote: > > > The only difference of any significance between the working > > and non-working configurations is that in the non-working, > > the component devices are larger than 2Gig, and hence have > > sector offsets greater than 32 bits. > > Do u mean 2T here?, but in both configuartion, the component devices are > larger than 2T (2.25T&5.5T). Yes, I meant 2T, and yes, the components are always over 2T. So I'm at a complete loss. The raid0 code follows the same paths and does the same things and uses 64bit arithmetic where needed. So I have no idea how there could be a difference between these two cases. I'm at a loss... NeilBrown