Re: Stability of ReiserFS onj Kernel 2.4.x (sp. 2.4.[56]{-ac*}

From: Daniel Phillips (
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 12:53:59 EST

On Monday 16 July 2001 19:19, Jussi Laako wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > We are not that far away from being able to handle 8K blocks, so
> > that would bump it up to 32 TB.
> That's way too small. Something like 32 PB would be better... ;)

Are you serious? What kind of application are you running?

> We need at least one extra bit in volume/file size every year.

OK, well hmm, then in 1969 we needed a volume size of 4K. Um, it's
probably more accurate to use 18 months as the doubling period.

Anyway, that's what the 64 bit option for buffer_head->b_blocknr is
supposed to handle. The question is, is it necessary to go to a
uniform 64 bit quantity for all users regardless of whether they feel
restricted by a 32 TB volume size limit or not.

/me figures it will be 9 years before he even has a 1 TB disk in his

OK, I looked again and saw the smiley. Sometimes it's hard to tell
what's outrageous when talking about disk sizes.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:07 EST