Heads up: e2fsprogs-1.42-WIP-0702 pushed to rawhide
lfarkas at lfarkas.org
Wed Oct 5 08:01:33 UTC 2011
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
i'm just like to ask Erik's opinion (who seems to be the fs people at rh:-)
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
More information about the devel