From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030214AbWFTJtN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:49:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932548AbWFTJtM (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:49:12 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:7114 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932497AbWFTJtL (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:49:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4497C485.7000400@garzik.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:48:53 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurent Vivier CC: Qi Yong , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , "ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , linux-kernel , Mingming Cao , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, alex@clusterfs.com, Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <1149885135.5776.100.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk> <4497927F.4070307@fc-cn.com> <4497B126.4000408@bull.net> <4497B230.5000508@garzik.org> <4497BE00.1040409@bull.net> In-Reply-To: <4497BE00.1040409@bull.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.3 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.2 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Laurent Vivier wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Laurent Vivier wrote: >>> Qi Yong wrote: >>>> Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> When is the Linux syscall interface enough? When should we just >>>>>> bump it >>>>>> and cut out all the compatibility interfaces? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, we don't; we let people configure certain obsolete bits out (a.out >>>>>> support etc), but we keep it in the tree despite the indirection >>>>>> cost to >>>>>> maintain multiple interfaces etc. >>>>>> >>>>> Right. WE ADD NEW SYSTEM CALLS. WE DO NOT EXTEND THE OLD ONES IN >>>>> WAYS THAT MIGHT BREAK OLD USERS. >>>>> >>>>> Your point was exactly what? >>>>> >>>>> Btw, where did that 2TB limit number come from? Afaik, it should be >>>>> 16TB for a 4kB filesystem, no? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Partition tables describe partitions in units of one sector. >>>> 2^(32+9) = 2T >>>> >>>> To prevent integer overflow, we should use only 31 bits of a 32-bit >>>> integer. >>>> 2^(31+12) = 8T >>>> >>>> There's _terrible_ hacks to really get to 16T. >>>> >>>> -- qiyong >>>> >>> IMHO, a simple solution is to use "Logical Volume Manager" instead of >>> partition >>> manager: we create 64bit filesystem in a Logical Volume, not in a >>> partition. >> That doesn't solve anything, if you are not using a 64bit filesystem. > > Sorry, I don't undestand why ??? > > You can use 32bit filesystem too, but you limit the size of the logical volume > to be compatible with the filesystem you use. LVM allows to create several 32bit > volumes on a big (> 8T) disk (if exists) Let's review the thread: qiyong: exist in the filesystem you: bust those limits with LVM! I think you are misunderstanding the subthread. >>> "partitioning is obsolete" ;-) >> LVM is nothing but a partition manager... > > LVM is more than a partition manager: I am well aware of what LVM2 and device mapper can do. Jeff