From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE1F7F53 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:10:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B221304032 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 17:10:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IC9nUFn0euw3UrGH for ; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:10:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <513BDD6E.7010507@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:10:06 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Maximum file system size of XFS? References: <20130309215121.0e614ef8@thinky> <513BB7C3.4050009@redhat.com> <20130309233940.3b7c0910@thinky> In-Reply-To: <20130309233940.3b7c0910@thinky> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Pascal Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 3/9/13 4:39 PM, Pascal wrote: > Hello Ric, > > thank you for your answer. I am aware that there is a difference > between the maximum size under practical conditions and the theoretical > maximum. But I am looking for this theoretical number to use in within > in my thesis comparing file systems. A thesis comparing actual scalability would be much more interesting than one comparing, essentially, the container size chosen for a disk block. One could quickly write a filesystem which "can" be as large as a yottabyte, but it wouldn't really *mean* anything. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs