On 10/21/2014 11:50 AM, Duncan wrote: > Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:21:04 +0200 as > excerpted: > [...] >> > >> > Could this be related to the inode overflow in 32 bit system (see >> > inode_cache options) ? If so running a 64bit "ls -i" should work.... > Good point. Russell might just owe you a beverage of choice. =:^) > > The inode_cache mount option isn't recommended for any bitness.
Hi Ducan, could you elaborate this sentence ? From my understanding inode_cache is *needed* on 32bit system in order to avoid inode number overflow. Why are you saying that it is not recommended ? Even if there are bugs, these have to be corrected. A bugs cannot be a reason to remove a needed option. Inode exhaustion is worse than a slowness... Otherwise BTRFS would be not suitable to a 32 bit system... But please tell me your opinion because may be I misunderstood something... BR G.Baroncelli -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
