Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:25:07 +0100
From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: what is our answer to ZFS?
Message-ID: <20051122092507.GE16295@merlin.emma.line.org>
Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <11b141710511210144h666d2edfi@mail.gmail.com> <200511211252.04217.rob@landley.net> <1132603369.3306.1.camel@gimli.at.home> <200511212342.47379.rob@landley.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200511212342.47379.rob@landley.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 937
Lines: 21

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:

> 2^64 we may actually live to see the end of someday, but it's not guaranteed.  
> 2^128 becoming relevant in our lifetimes is a touch unlikely.

Some people suggested we don't know usage and organization patterns yet,
perhaps something that is very sparse can benefit from linear addressing
in a huge (not to say vastly oversized) address space. Perhaps not.

One real-world example is that we've been doing RAM overcommit for a
long time to account for but not actually perform memory allocations,
and on 32-bit machines, 1 GB of RAM already required highmem until
recently. So here, 64-bit address space comes as an advantage.

-- 
Matthias Andree
-
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/