Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> My understanding is that the bigmem patches are FS patches not memory
> patches - they are inappropriately named perhaps.
>
Bigmem is support for > 1G _RAM_. The reson it is in 2.2 and large file
support is not is that the latter breaks libc (and posix?) and the first
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Hunter Matthews wrote:
HM> Basically, nobody is going to use a true logging filesystem these days -
HM> the databases themselves do rollback. The other advantage to logging is
HM> the part that is also a part of journaling, and journaling is thus more
HM> general purpose.
chter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 8:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large files 2GB+ & RAID?
>
> I wrote:
> | [...] so you should not be on raid 0.90 being available in 2.4.
>
> That should read, "[...]
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 04:55:08AM -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes, in response to a request by
> Jason Titus about getting >2GB file support and raid-0.90:
> >2.4 will surely have an up-to-date raid implementation.
>
> Features are supposed to get into
I wrote:
| [...] so you should not be on raid 0.90 being available in 2.4.
That should read, "[...] so you should not _bet_ on raid
0.90 being available in 2.4."
Sorry for the typo.
Adam J. Richter __ __ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes, in response to a request by
Jason Titus about getting >2GB file support and raid-0.90:
>2.4 will surely have an up-to-date raid implementation.
Features are supposed to get into the "stable" branch like
2.4 by first being implemented in an "experiment
[I left off CC'ing the universe on this one...]
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Andre Pang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 06:42:15PM -0500, Jason Titus wrote:
>
> > by highmem (all culled from the Linux Memory Management mailing list). All
> > of the >2GB file stuff is refereed to mostly as Large File
On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 06:42:15PM -0500, Jason Titus wrote:
> by highmem (all culled from the Linux Memory Management mailing list). All
> of the >2GB file stuff is refereed to mostly as Large File Summit (LFS) not
> to be confused with Log File System (LFS - no idea what it does. Some sort
>
> Nope. Bigmem was for 4 GB RAM and such, and has been pretty much replaced
> by highmem (all culled from the Linux Memory Management mailing list). All
> of the >2GB file stuff is refereed to mostly as Large File Summit (LFS) not
> to be confused with Log File System (LFS - no idea what it does
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Large files 2GB+ & RAID?
>Date: Tue, Dec 28, 1999, 6:31 PM
>
>> Ah, sorry for the puns and any confusion. I am talking about 2GB+
>> file sizes, not memory. The also proves my po
though many
other 32 bit OSes have them)...
Jason
--
>From: Seth Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Jason Titus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Large files 2GB+
> Ah, sorry for the puns and any confusion. I am talking about 2GB+
> file sizes, not memory. The also proves my point - we now have >4GB
> memory on 32 bit systems - which is only applicable for a VERY small
> percentage of Linux users, but not >2GB files on 32 bit systems (once
> again - even
> Unfortunately the hardware RAID still doesn't solve the 2GB+ problem. I
> also have a hard time with the 'if you want big files, buy a 64 bit machine'
> argument. What percentage of Linux users are on 64 bit platforms? How many
> other x86 OS's support 64 bit filesystems (NT, FreeBSD, BeOS,
on.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
>From: Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Stephen Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Jason Titus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Large files 2GB+ & RAID?
>Date: Tue, Dec 28, 1999, 5:37 PM
>
> Stephen Waters wr
Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> So what's wrong with buying a harware raid controller or waiting for
> 2.4?
nothing is "wrong" with it, per se, the guy just wanted to know if it
could be done. after all, with software raid performance being what it
is, how is it surprising that the guy wants to use it?
-s
Stephen Waters wrote:
>
> > 2.3.x are _not_ the kernels one wants to use in production environment.
> > 2.4 will surely have an up-to-date raid implementation.
> > if you need >2GB filesize support and RAID _now_, go buy a non-intel
> > system (alpha, sparc64), or a hardware raid controller that
Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> Jason Titus wrote:
> >
> > We've been working on getting a x86 Linux system together that would support
> > both RAID and larger then 2 GB file sizes - so far with little luck. RAID
> > works fine on 2.2 kernels, and > 2GB files works on 2.3 kernels but RAID
> > doesn't seem
Jason Titus wrote:
>
> We've been working on getting a x86 Linux system together that would support
> both RAID and larger then 2 GB file sizes - so far with little luck. RAID
> works fine on 2.2 kernels, and > 2GB files works on 2.3 kernels but RAID
> doesn't seem to like 2.3 (or at least the 2
We've been working on getting a x86 Linux system together that would support
both RAID and larger then 2 GB file sizes - so far with little luck. RAID
works fine on 2.2 kernels, and > 2GB files works on 2.3 kernels but RAID
doesn't seem to like 2.3 (or at least the 2.3.34 w/ the included RAID).
W
19 matches
Mail list logo
