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

[Daniel Phillips]

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 
laptop

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

--
Daniel