On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 03:46:04PM -0500, Peter Kimball wrote: > > 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. The ino64 mount option does not exist any more - it got removed quite some time ago as it was debug-only code that nobody ever tested or verified did the right thing... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
