On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:33:16PM -0500, Peter Kimball wrote: >> I created a blank 1GB disk image, created an XFS filesystem on that image, and mounted it on a loopback device using the ino64 flag. >> >> I wrote a bunch of data to the filesystem (lots of small files), approximately 600MB. >> >> At this point, I think I have a filesystem in which inodes use 64-bit addresses, even if the actual address value would fit in 32 bits. I would expect any program that can't handle 64-bit addresses to barf when trying to access any data on the filesystem. > > You will never not see 64-bit inodes on a filesystem that small ever. > Try to create a (sparse) 10TB loop image, and create some deep > directories in it. This should create some larger inodes number for > you if you had it mounted with the inode64 flag. You can verify that > by checking that the inode number returned from the stat systsem call > or from ls -i is larger than 32 bits. > Thank you for that guide, Christoph. I followed your directions and the directory tree I created included some >32-bit inode numbers so I was able to successfully test all of our NFS clients. >From what I'd read, I thought that the ino64 mount option would do the work for me (bring 32-bit inode numbers into 64-bit range), apparently that is not the case. This method worked great, hopefully the next person to search can find this happy thread. Many thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
