From: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Creating a >32bit blocks filesystem.
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:29:40 -0500
Message-ID: <20070509102940.36493474@gara>
References: <20070503140804.463b20e1@naruto>
	<463B4A1B.4070201@bull.net>
	<20070507111952.7868bc1c@gara>
	<4641BBB7.8020904@bull.net>
	<20070509085547.4785bf7d@gara>
	<4641E13D.906@bull.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
To: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@bull.net>
In-Reply-To: <4641E13D.906@bull.net>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:57:01 +0200
Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@bull.net> wrote:

> Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > I think this has more to do with the fact that I'm on a 32bit
> > architecture and there are still a couple places where blocks are
> > represented using "unsigned long".  I'm trying to get access to a 6=
4bit
> > arch to confirm this.
> >=20
> > -JRS
> >=20
> Oh, I didn't catch that you use a 32-bit system.
> On 32-bit architectures, the page cache index size imposes a 16TB lim=
it=20
> on the filesystem size (with 4KB blocksize). So you need a 64-bit sys=
tem=20
> for your test.
>    Val=C3=A9rie

Thanks for the info.  Would the page cache limitation also restrict deb=
ugfs and dumpe2fs from reading information on a large filesystem?  Woul=
d a check need to be in place to limit the use of e2fsprog on 32bit arc=
hitectures using large block devices.

-JRS