On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: >> On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all. >>>> >>>> the why rh do NOT support it in 32 bit? there're still system that >>>> should have to run on 32 bit:-( >>> >>> 32-bit machines have a 32-bit index into the page cache; on x86, that limits >>> us to 16T for XFS, as well. So 32-bit is really not that interesting for >>> large filesystem use. >>> >>> If you need really scalable filesystems, I'd suggest a 64-bit machine. >> >> i mean if you support xfs and think it's better then ext4 why not >> support it on rhel 32bit? > > This is a question you should direct through Red Hat's support > channels. i'm just like to ask Erik's opinion (who seems to be the fs people at rh:-) -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
