On 2011-06-10, at 9:19 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 8:08 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> There is only a single block pointer for each bitmap per group. That said,
>> with flex_bg this is mostly meaningless, since the bitmaps do not have to
>> be located in the group, and a flex group is the same as a virtual group
>> that is {flex_bg_factor} times as large.
>
> Of course there is only a single pointer because there is only a single bitmap. What does this have to do with limiting the block count to 8 * blocksize?
I think in the presence of flex_bg this issue is moot.
>>> 3) Why does 64bit disable the resize inode?
>>
>> Because the on-disk format of the resize inode is only suitable for 32-bit
>> filesystems (it is an indirect-block mapped file and cannot reserve blocks
>> beyond 2^32). The "future" way to resize filesystems is using the META_BG
>> feature, but the ability to use it has not been integrated into the kernel
>> or e2fsprogs yet.
>
> Ahh, right... no indirect blocks. Couldn't and shouldn't the resize inode just use extents instead? Also I thought that META_BG was an idea that eventually become FLEX_BG and has been dropped?
META_BG also reduces the number of group descriptor blocks needed for the table.
Normally (without META_BG) each group descriptor table has a full copy of all
group descriptor blocks, and it has to be allocated contiguously on disk.
With META_BG, there are only 2 backups of each GDT block, and it is spread
around the filesystem, so there is not a need to allocate huge chunks of space.
Once we get a filesystem up to 256TB in size the size of the GDT will be larger
than a whole group (more than 128MB per GDT) and it will not be possible to
create a larger filesystem without META_BG.
Cheers, Andreas
--
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
