From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n67IGmmO159806 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:16:48 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 406C31B00C36 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AXZk44lE63mQjGQH for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A539132.40907@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:17:22 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] default to inode64 on 64-bit systems References: <4A52419E.5020301@sandeen.net> <20090707093802.GA32125@citd.de> <4A535650.7020309@sandeen.net> <20090707181352.GA3357@citd.de> In-Reply-To: <20090707181352.GA3357@citd.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: xfs mailing list 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs