![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Aug 06, 2002 03:24 -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Andreas Dilger writes: > > Having 16kB block size would allow a maximum of 64TB for a single > > filesystem. The per-file limit would be over 256TB. > > Um, yeah, 64 TB of data with 192 TB of holes! > I really don't think you should count a file > that won't fit on your filesystem. Well, no worse than the original posting which had reiserfs supporting something-EB files and 16TB filesystems. Don't think I didn't consider this at the time of posting. > > In reality, we will probably implement extent-based allocation for > > ext3 when we start getting into filesystems that large, which has been > > discussed among the ext2/ext3 developers already. > > It's nice to have a simple filesystem. If you turn ext2/ext3 > into an XFS/JFS competitor, then what is left? Just minix fs? Note that I said ext3 in the above sentence, and not ext2. I'm not in favour of adding all of the high-end features (htree, extents, etc) into ext2 at all. It makes absolutely no sense to have a multi-TB filesystem running ext2, and then the fsck time takes a day. It is desirable to put some minimum support into ext2 for newer features when it makes sense and does not complicate the code, but not for everything. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||