From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Shishkin Subject: Re: [RFC] reiserfs 3.7 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:49:30 +0100 Message-ID: <4CE9074A.8050608@gmail.com> References: <4CE7F1C3.2010701@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tEefwa2gUU8xaby47srwWOQJjy45dqvhcQ7F7Vv81f4=; b=sE620AaJalTgsSUgEnUNynRqIuJUpY1Iwoo8/9PB+sff133s/KleiIY+nnyQuDFVzZ RV4Ox0pf/xQYGtbWrgbHH/DOzf7LxALkrcSpzunXjo477y7W5gTg/kG7+EXaM8U/DwwX VWaubMVeFCAQq8L8c/7OBD7RKQSwl6APG/koo= In-Reply-To: <4CE7F1C3.2010701@suse.com> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Jeff Mahoney Cc: ReiserFS Mailing List Jeff Mahoney wrote: > Hi all - > > I recently posted about wanting to extend the maximum supported file > size from the 2 TB limit it currently has to the advertised maximum of 8 > TB. This turned out to be a flop since the file system format uses 512 > byte blocks in the stat data's sd_blocks field. So what do you want to keep in sd_blocks of 3.7 disks? > The format supports > larger file sizes in general, but this field is a stumbling block. Users > are trying to work within reiserfs's advertised limits and discovering > that the limits aren't as accurate as we thought. > > I commented during that thread about how I should have created a v3.7 > years ago when I first wrote the hack that is extended attributes. > > So, I have. See the following posts. The initial version doesn't have > any extended features - it just adds a new magic number and the feature > bitmasks to the superblock. It follows the ext[234] system of feature > bits to define which features are supported on the file system. > > I also have fsck support written but it is pretty untested still. Before > I invest more effort in this, I'd like to get a consensus of whether or > not this is desirable feature. > > My intention is that, once this is upstream, to backport it to our > earlier products to enable things like the 8 TB limit. > > The idea is to be able to convert an existing 3.6 file system to 3.7 , > just like the 3.5->3.6 conversion. You want to prohibit mounting of 3.6 disks to 3.7 kernels? I am afraid it will be a shock therapy: mandatory fsck can be rather painful for someone.. Edward. > For features like the blocksize > sd_blocks field, fsck --fix-fixable would adjust all the sd_blocks > values on the file system. > > -Jeff > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html