Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:50:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:50:15 -0500 Received: from host154.207-175-42.redhat.com ([207.175.42.154]:64839 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:50:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:49:57 -0500 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: "Peter T. Breuer" , dalecki@evision.ag, linux kernel Subject: Re: blocks or KB? (was: .. current meaning of blk_size array) Message-ID: <20011114164957.A7587@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3BF23D01.F7E879E8@evision-ventures.com> <200111142041.fAEKfBN15594@oboe.it.uc3m.es> <20011114141639.P5739@lynx.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011114141639.P5739@lynx.no>; from adilger@turbolabs.com on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:16:39PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:16:39PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > Well, the rumor is wrong. There has always been a single-device 1TB/2TB > limit in the kernel (2^31 or 2^32 * 512 byte sector size), and until > recently it has not been a problem. To remove the problem Jens Axboe > (I think, or Ben LaHaise, can't remember) has a patch to support 64-bit > block counts and has been tested with > 2TB devices. It was tested with a 10TB loopback raid, not a real device. Strangly, nobody made any effort to test on real physical hardware (or offer any hardware for me to test on ;-). The patch was against ~2.4.6 and will need to get dusted off again soon. -ben -- Fish. - 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/