Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Sep 10, 2009 16:16 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Any suggestions on the naming issues? (what's the official name for a >> "not-extent-based-file?") > > I've always used "block mapped" (i.e. mapped block-by-block) vs. > "extent mapped". > >> However, Ric just ran a massive fs_mark test on a 60T filesystem that he >> created with "mke2fs" (no extents and no journal - accidentally) and we >> got no corruption even without this patch. >> >> I need to see if a filesystem w/o the extents feature (at all, vs. some >> old-format files on an extents fs) never even tries to allocate past >> 2^32; I didn't think so, but now not so sure. > > Well, it may depend a lot on which inodes are in use. That will set the > goal block, and may prevent any above-16TB allocations. Either you could yep, though I had many, many inodes in the high groups ... Problem is I don't quite trust debugfs etc to get it right, so when I see < 32 bits, I'm not sure if it's really there, or if the reporting/debug tool wrapped it ;) -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
