Re: Stability of ReiserFS onj Kernel 2.4.x (sp. 2.4.[56]{-ac*}

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On Monday 16 July 2001 00:05, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 July 2001 18:44, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > The limits for reiserfs and ext2 for kernels 2.4.x are the same
> > > (and they are 2Tb not 1Tb).  The limits are not in the individual
> > > filesystems.  We need to have Linux go to 64 bit blocknumbers in
> > > 2.5.x, I am seeing a lot of customer demand for it.  (Or we could
> > > use scalable integers, which would be better.)
> >
> > Or we could introduce the notion of logical blocksize for each
> > block minor so that we can measure blocks in the same units the
> > filesystem uses.  This would give us 16 TB while being able to stay
> > with 32 bits everywhere outside the block drivers themselves.
> >
> > We are not that far away from being able to handle 8K blocks, so
> > that would bump it up to 32 TB.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel
>
> 16TB is not enough.
>
> I agree that blocknumbers are a significant space user in FS
> metadata, which is why I think scalable integers are correct.

I must have missed the place where you defined what scalable integers
are.  I'd think the prefered way of representing a logical block size
is as a bit shift, not an absolute size, because it's far more
efficient to use that way.  Is this the same as a scalable integer?

--
Daniel