From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>
To: Peter Chubb <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au>
Cc: Jeremy Andrews <jeremy@kerneltrap.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove 2TB block device limit
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:46:23 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020510234623.GC12975@turbolinux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15579.16423.930012.986750@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20020510084713.43ce396e.jeremy@kerneltrap.org> <15580.7052.396951.568702@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au>
On May 11, 2002 05:12 +1000, Peter Chubb wrote:
> See http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/~peterc/lfs.html
> (which I'm intending to update next week, after some testing to
> check the new limits with my new code -- I found the 1TB limit in
> the generic code (someone using a signed int instead of unsigned long))
Any chance you could rename this from "LFS" to something else (e.g. LBD
for Large Block Device). LFS == Large File Summit which describes the
use/access of > 2GB _files_ on 32-bit systems under Unix.
> There are three different limits that apply:
>
> --- The physical layout on disc (e.g., ext2 uses 32-bit for block
> numbers within a file system; thus the max size is
> (2^32-1)*block_size; although it's theoretically possible to use
> larger blocksizes, the current toolchain has a maximum of 4k,
> thus the largest size of an ext[23] filesystem is ((2^32)-1)*4k
> bytes --- around 16TB)
For 64-bit systems like Alpha, it is relatively easy to use 8kB blocks for
ext3. It has been discouraged because such a filesystem is non-portable
to other (smaller page-sized) filesystems. Maybe this rationale should
be re-examined - I could probably whip up a configure option for
e2fsprogs to allow 8kB blocks in a few hours.
Does x86-64 and/or ia64 actually _use_ > 4kB page sizes? If so, it
may be more worthwhile to allow larger block sizes with e2fsprogs.
It may be that the kernel supports >4kB blocks already on systems with
larger PAGE_SIZE, I don't know (no way for me to test this).
> It's extremely unlikely that you'd want to use a non-journalled
> file system on such a large partition, so your best bets are
> reiserfs, jfs or XFS.
I find it somewhat ironic that you suggest reiserfs over ext3, when in
fact they both currently have the same 16TB filesystem limit. On your
web page, you say the ext[23] limit is 1TB, which it definitely is not
(unless there are bugs in the code). There is currently a 16TB filesystem
limit for 4kB blocks, but there are plans towards fixing that also.
> --- Limitations imposed by the partitioning scheme.
> As far as I know, only the EFI GUID partitioning scheme uses
> 64-bit block offsets, so under any other scheme you're limited to
> 2^32 or 2^31 blocks per disc; some use the underlying hardware
> sector size, some use a block size that's multiple of this.
LVM does not need to have partitions, and presumably EVMS using Linux
or AIX LVM devices doesn't either.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-10 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-10 3:36 [PATCH] remove 2TB block device limit Peter Chubb
2002-05-10 4:05 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-10 8:43 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-05-10 9:04 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-16 19:08 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-10 9:05 ` Jens Axboe
2002-05-10 9:53 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-10 10:01 ` Jens Axboe
2002-05-10 11:43 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-05-10 4:51 ` Martin Dalecki
[not found] ` <20020510084713.43ce396e.jeremy@kerneltrap.org>
2002-05-10 19:12 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-10 23:46 ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
2002-05-11 0:07 ` David Mosberger
2002-05-15 22:17 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-05-16 20:22 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-16 22:54 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-05-17 1:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-11 4:40 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-15 13:49 ` Pavel Machek
2002-05-11 18:13 ` Padraig Brady
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-10 3:53 Neil Brown
[not found] <1060250300@toto.iv>
2002-05-13 10:28 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-13 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-05-14 0:30 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-14 1:36 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-05-16 20:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-14 2:09 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-14 2:58 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-14 7:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-05-14 7:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-05-15 9:41 Hirotaka Sasaki
2002-05-15 21:49 ` Steve Lord
[not found] <581856778@toto.iv>
2002-05-17 0:04 ` Peter Chubb
2002-05-17 0:18 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-17 13:32 ` Jesse Pollard
2002-05-17 18:02 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-17 18:26 ` Jesse Pollard
2002-05-17 18:36 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-05-17 19:52 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-17 20:25 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-17 15:26 ` Jason L Tibbitts III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020510234623.GC12975@turbolinux.com \
--to=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=jeremy@kerneltrap.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter@chubb.wattle.id.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox