Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161438AbWHJQYP (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:24:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161435AbWHJQYO (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:24:14 -0400 Received: from mxsf38.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.165]:30898 "EHLO mxsf38.cluster1.charter.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161429AbWHJQYL (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:24:11 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,111,1154923200"; d="scan'208"; a="2046197113:sNHT49841400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17627.23974.848640.278643@stoffel.org> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:24:06 -0400 From: "John Stoffel" To: Roman Zippel Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string In-Reply-To: References: <1155172843.3161.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060809234019.c8a730e3.akpm@osdl.org> <44DB203A.6050901@garzik.org> <44DB25C1.1020807@garzik.org> <44DB27A3.1040606@garzik.org> <44DB3151.8050904@garzik.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1670 Lines: 37 >>>>> "Roman" == Roman Zippel writes: Roman> If you force everyone to use 64bit sector numbers, I don't Roman> understand how you can claim "still working just fine on Roman> 32bit"? At some point ext4 is probably going to be the de Roman> facto standard, which very many people want to use, because it Roman> has all the new features, which won't be ported to ext2/3. So I Roman> still don't understand, what's so wrong about a little tuning Roman> in both directions? The problem as I see it, is that you want extents, but you don't want the RAM/DISK/ROM penalty of 64bit blocks, since embedded devices won't ever go past the existing ext3 sizes, right? Is this a more clear statement of what you want? So the next question I have, and this is for the ext3/ext4 developers, is whether ext4 will have a feature flag to mark whether the filesystem has 64bit sector numbers or not. If so, then I think Roman will be fine. Me, I think going all 64bit is the way to go, since it moves the limits so high up, that we probably won't hit them in a serious way for another 20 years in terms of disk space addressing needs, sorta like how 64bit CPUs have really moved out the RAM constraints as well. Now sure, there are people who will hit those limits, but they're in a very very small minority with the money to pay for a large large electric bill to just run a system that big. For now. John - 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/