I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes.
The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore.
I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch.
Also, CONFIG_ option is gone, because it made the code ugly.
Majors part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
NFS part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
Userland for NFS:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask
me for patches, get them and disappear into the void. I hear
nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it
several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS
server code, since fixed). I am thinking about submitting,
but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate
with LANANA...
-- Pete
Hello:
Pete Zaitcev wrote,
> I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes.
> The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore. I split the
> unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch. Also, CONFIG_ option is gone,
> because it made the code ugly.
>
> Majors part:
> http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
> NFS part:
> http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
> Userland for NFS:
> http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
> Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask me for
> patches, get them and disappear into the void.
Heh, one of them would be me! :-D
> I hear nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it
> several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS server
> code, since fixed).
The requirement for such a large number of mounts does not exist for me
anymore so the patches never went into the production environment for
me.
> I am thinking about submitting, but if users do not ask, why add extra
> bloat and negotiate with LANANA...
IMHO, the Linux kernel's inability to handle mounts > 256 mounts is a
deficiency.
AFAIK, FreeBSD does not have this problem. I would really appreciate it
if these patches made it into the kernel so that I wont be surprised to
realize that Linux cant do more than 256 mounts out of the box the
next time I try it.
Zaitcev, thanx for making those patches available in the first place.
Oh, will you be rolling the user land patches to util-linux to the RedHat
RPMS?
-- Shanu
--
Workers of the world, arise! You have nothing to lose but your
chairs.
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes.
> The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore.
> I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch.
> Also, CONFIG_ option is gone, because it made the code ugly.
>
> Majors part:
> http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
> NFS part:
> http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
> Userland for NFS:
> http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
>
> Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask
> me for patches, get them and disappear into the void. I hear
> nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it
> several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS
> server code, since fixed). I am thinking about submitting,
> but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate
> with LANANA...
I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's
included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch
for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device
numbers...
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>
> I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's
> included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch
> for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device
> numbers...
Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part.
There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required
changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that.
-- Pete
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
> > From: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>
>
> > I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's
> > included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch
> > for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device
> > numbers...
>
> Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part.
> There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required
> changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that.
Sure, I know. In these cases getting the limit from 255 to around 800 is
enough so the mount patch isn't even needed.
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Well, count me as another who would like to see the unnamed major and NFS
parts make it into the 2.4 kernel. I've had a number of conversations in
which there was an expressed interest in more than 246 or so mount points.
With what release/whatever do you ship the unnamed majors part?
Thanks,
---
Bruce Allan <[email protected]>
Software Engineer, Linux Technology Center
IBM Corporation, Beaverton OR
503-578-4187 IBM Tie-line 775-4187
Pete Zaitcev
<[email protected]> To: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>
Sent by: cc: Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected] [email protected]
ceforge.net Subject: [NFS] Re: 1279 mounts
04/27/2002 06:32 PM
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>
> I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's
> included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch
> for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device
> numbers...
Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part.
There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required
changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that.
-- Pete
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs