On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 11:24:32AM -0500, Ken Preslan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:15:08PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:05:03PM -0500, Ken Preslan wrote: > > > For Linux 2.6 on a 32-bit platform, the max filesystem size is 16TB if > > > you trust the sign bit, 8TB if you don't. This limit comes from the > > > 32-bit page index in the "struct page": 2^32 * 4096 bytes/page = 16TB. > > > > > > For Linux 2.6 on a 64-bit platform, the max filesystem size is *big*. > > > Something around 2^64 bytes. > > > > That means that you need to have a cluster of equal-bit-arch members? > > > > One can certainly not add a 32-bit cluster member to a 64-bit > 16TB > > crafted cluster. What about smaller sized filesystems? Would 32bits > > and 64bits work nicely together, or are there more barriers? > > You can happily mix 32-bit and 64-bit machines. As you said, 32-bit > machines shouldn't access bigger filesystems. But, you can have a mixed > cluster with the 32-bit machines mounting only smaller the filesystems > and the 64-bit machines mounting anything they want. That's good news, thank you. :) Does this mean the on-disk-format is independent of the machine word size? Just out of interest, what will happen, if a 32bit cluster member tries to join/mount a too-large fs? Will the operation fail or will there be silent data corruption? (My background is that I am testing GFS/cvs under x86_64, but later most cluster members will be ia32.) Thanks! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpIMHtG2Sv3A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
