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 "experimental"
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]
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 the
:[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, "[...] so you should not _bet_ on raid
0.90 being available i
Seth Vidal wrote:
snip
My understanding is that the bigmem patches are FS patches not memory
patches - they are inappropriately named perhaps.
snip
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
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).
]
--
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 wrote:
snip
2.3.x are _not_ the kernels one wants to use in production
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,
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 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+ RAID?
Date: Tue, Dec 28, 1999, 6:09 PM
Unfortunately
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.
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
of
[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
13 matches
Mail list logo
