Re: [PATCH, RFC] default to inode64 on 64-bit systems

Eric Sandeen
2009-07-07T18:16:48Z

Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> On 07.07.2009 09:06, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2009 13:25, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> I'm tiring of telling people to use the inode64 mount option
>>>> when they are experiencing bad performance on large xfs
>>>> filesystems...
>>>>
>>>> 32-bit userspace is still largely broken when it comes to still
>>>> using 32-bit stat calls, but on 64-bit systems this should be
>>>> safe.
>>>>
>>>> The only problem here is moving the disk onto a 32-bit system, or using
>>>> 32-bit apps. But I think it's a small risk.
>>>>
>>>> What do we think about the following?
>>> What is with people running 64bit kernel but 32bit Userspace?
>> Good point. I wonder how many do that... hrm.
>
> I'd guess pretty much anybody who what's to utilize the amount of RAM
> you can have nowadays, but doesn't have any single program that needs
> that amount of memory. Or, like in my case, just needs it for
> tmpfs/buffer cache.
>
> Throw in some "i don't want to reinstall" or "my Distribution isn't
> biarch" and you have someone who justs recompils their kernel and be
> done with it. It took me only a few minutes (rotating my hardware around
> that day took way longer)
>

*nod*

I waved hands about the mount path checking whether the "mount" command
that started it was a 32-bit binary, and making a decision based on
that... and Christoph pointed out that it'd be easy ... and then he gave
me a dirty look for even thinking about it ;)

-Eric