Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:17:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:17:42 -0400 Received: from gecko.roadtoad.net ([209.209.8.2]:1021 "EHLO gecko.roadtoad.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:17:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:17:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Derek Vadala To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: max sizes for files and file systems Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've been trying to do some research on the file size and filesystem size limitations under Linux for stable releases since 2.0. It's clear that under 2.4, the kernel imposes a limit of 2TB as the maximum file size and that some portion of the kernels before 2.4 had a limit of 2GB. However, it's not clear to me when the file size limit was increased, or what the maximum file system sizes under 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 are. I realize that both of these values are also contingent on the filesystem used, but I'm wondering about what limits the kernel itself imposes. I'm also a bit unclear as to where the 2GB limit in kernels < 2.4 comes from. It appears to be a kernel imposed limit, but there also seems to be a lot conflicting information out there, blaming the problem on EXT2. However, from what I can tell, 2.0.39, 2.2.19 and 2.4.5 all use the same version (0.5b-95/08/09) of ext2-- either that or EXT2FS_VERSION and EXT2FS_DATE in .../include/linux/ext2_fs.h simply haven't been updated. Any clarification would be appreciated. --- Derek Vadala, derek@cynicism.com, http://www.cynicism.com/~derek - 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/