On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all.
>>>
>>> the why rh do NOT support it in 32 bit? there're still system that
>>> should have to run on 32 bit:-(
>>
>> 32-bit machines have a 32-bit index into the page cache; on x86, that limits
>> us to 16T for XFS, as well. So 32-bit is really not that interesting for
>> large filesystem use.
>>
>> If you need really scalable filesystems, I'd suggest a 64-bit machine.
>
> i mean if you support xfs and think it's better then ext4 why not
> support it on rhel 32bit?
This is a question you should direct through Red Hat's support
channels.
i'm just like to ask Erik's opinion (who seems to be the fs people at rh:-)
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"