Hi,
>From the XFS list I gather that btrfs, being able to mount a >16 TB volume on a 32-bit x86 box, either has some special power - or bug. Which of the two is it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:26:26 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: Volume too big Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jan 19 2008 14:41, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> It's possible that btrfs can cope with this somehow - but also quite >> possible that it's just missing the right checks :) >> > I am not sure why Linux would be limited to 16 TB. If LBD is on, > things are 64 bit, so I would expect to have at least access to > 2 exabyte. 64-bit sector addressing, but there is a 32-bit index into the (4k) pagecache. 2^32 * 4096 is 16T So an address space has a 16T limit. Even mkfs, if it needs to write past 16T (and I think mkfs.btrfs doesn't need that...) will have trouble, if the device is > 16T - unless mkfs uses direct IO. -Eric _______________________________________________ Btrfs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/btrfs-devel
