I'm considering using the raw tablespace from InnoDB for a project I'm
working on. I noticed a couple of years ago that there were reports of
tablespace corruption on Linux and these raw tablespaces. Have these
problems been fixed? I'm considering running it on a hardware RAID
(stripes of mir
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Lubratt writes:
I'm considering this option to keep database maintenance to a minimum
(running out of tablespace issues). That way, InnoDB already owns all
the disk space and I don't have to con
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 11:25 AM, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Lubratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm considering using the raw tablespace from InnoDB for a project I'm
working on. I noticed a couple of years ago that there were reports
of tablespace corrupt
2GB limit? On MacOS X?
On almost every OS I've played with lately, the file size limit is massive -
as in far beyond what disc capacity today will allow. Does MacOS X have a 2GB
limit?
Regards,
Chris
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 04:03 am, Mark Lubratt wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10:25 A
Chris Nolan wrote:
>2GB limit? On MacOS X?
>
>On almost every OS I've played with lately, the file size limit is
>massive - as in far beyond what disc capacity today will allow. Does
>MacOS X have a 2GB limit?
No, OS X has a file size limit of 2 TB (prior to 10.2), 8 TB (10.2.x) or 16
TB (10.3).
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:42:23AM -0600, Mark Lubratt wrote:
> I'm considering using the raw tablespace from InnoDB for a project I'm
> working on. I noticed a couple of years ago that there were reports of
> tablespace corruption on Linux and these raw tablespaces. Have these
> problems been
To my knowledge, ext2 does have the limitation but ext3 does not.
Additionally, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS all have disgustingly large file
size limits.
As a side note, apparently NetWare has major file size limitations
(going on Gupta's SQLBase documentation)
Regards,
Chris
Mark Lubratt wrote:
No, files can be bigger than 2GB. In OSX prior to Panther there is a
2GB per-process memory limit though. Then again, on anything other than
the PowerMac G5 this doesn't matter because the G5 is the only Mac that
can hold more than 2GB of RAM.
- Gabriel
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 04:42
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:08:29PM +1100, Chris Nolan wrote:
> To my knowledge, ext2 does have the [2GB filesize] limitation but
> ext3 does not.
ext2 does not have this limitation. It was never a limitation of the
filesystem, only kernel/glibc. On 64bit architectures ext2 has been
handling larg
If I recall correctly, the "G5", the mighty PowerPC 970, is used by
Apple just as Windows currently uses the mighty Hammer series from AMD -
as a souped up 32-bit processor.
Regards,
Chris
Gabriel Ricard wrote:
No, files can be bigger than 2GB. In OSX prior to Panther there is a
2GB per-proc
How about we just all agree that SCO's OSes can't handle large files,
and therefore should all be avoided in favour of completely superior
OSes, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, NetBSD and DOS 2.11
Regards,
Chris
Pete Harlan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:08:29PM +1100, Chris Nolan wrote:
11 matches
Mail list logo
