I am trying to put some files that are larger 2 Gig on an ext3 file system.

This file system is is running on an 2.4.13 version of the linux kernel.  An
updated Caldera 3.1 OpenLinux distro.

Can ext2/3 do large file support?
JFS can can't it?

Thanks,

Jon Syvertson
HON INDUSTRIES

-----Original Message-----
From: Maccaferri Andrea [mailto:a.maccaferri@;ira.cnr.it]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 4:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Jfs-discussion] what's about large LFS on 2.2.16 kernel using
jfs 1.0.5 ?


I need to use large file size > 2GB, on a old redhat 6.1 .
I 'm using a 2.2.16 kernel with glibc 2.1.2.
I patched the kernel 2.2.16 and installed jfs 1.0.5.
I made with succes a jfs file system on a 120GB ide disk.
Now I have tried to build a tar file >2GB on it and it exit with error
at 2GB size.

I know that distribution with 2.4.x kernel hasn't this problem but
I had some problems compiling old software made for 2.2.x kernel
that I use to access some hardware device, for new 2.4.x kernel.

In description of jfs feature file system size and file size limits
exceed my requirement, but somewhere in the notes on jfs, I have
discovered that the limits could be due to linux kernel limit !!.
1) So is it possible to overcame the limitation of 2GB, with old 2.2.16
kernel. ?

2) Is rev 1.0.5 stable enought to use just to save data
    files and not system files?

3) do I need to upgrade my glibc form 2.1.2 to later version to use
large files?
(and if yes do you how to do it without broken the system ?)

4) After that just recompiling my software with open file option
O_LARGEFILE
    will be enought to manage file > 2GB ?

best regards
Andrea Maccaferri
CNR Istituto di Radioastronomia BO Italy

_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion

Reply via email to