David Chinner <[email protected]> writes:
>
> And yes, 64 bit systems are cheap, cheap, cheap so IMO this
> functionality is really irrelevant moving forward. If it had come
> along a couple of years ago then it would be different, but I think
> mainstream technology is finally catching up with XFS so it's not a
> critical issue anymore... ;)
One issue is that people often still run a lot of 32bit userland
even with 64bit kernels. The compat layer will just truncate
the inodes I think. But so far I haven't heard of anybody
complaining on x86-64.
-Andi
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:59:15PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> David Chinner <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > And yes, 64 bit systems are cheap, cheap, cheap so IMO this
> > functionality is really irrelevant moving forward. If it had come
> > along a couple of years ago then it would be different, but I think
> > mainstream technology is finally catching up with XFS so it's not a
> > critical issue anymore... ;)
>
> One issue is that people often still run a lot of 32bit userland
> even with 64bit kernels.
Which is one of the reasons why XFS uses 32 bit inodes by default
even on 64 bit kernels. XFS does not use 64 bit inodes unless you
tell it to via the inode64 mount option....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group