Hi! > > > Also, for filesystems like btrfs or ZFS the checking can be done > > > online and incrementally without storing a full representation of > > > the state in memory. > > > > You could, but I suspect it would be cheaper to just use a > > 64bit system than to rewrite fsck. 64bit is available > > for a lot of embedded setups these days too. > > We don't have to rewrite fsck; most of the framework for supporting an > run-length-conding for compressed bitmaps is already in patches that > add > 32-bit block numbers to e2fsprogs; we've just been more focused > on getting 64-bit block numbers support merged than implementing > compressed bitmaps, but it's only one file that would need to be > added, and we might be able to steal the compressed bitmap support > from xfsprogs --- which does this already. Well... 'If allocation pattern is bad your fsck runs out of address space and breaks on your 15T fs' would scare me. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
