yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has brought this up before is a pretty good indication of the demand. there are about 1000 things i'd rather see fixed/improved than max disk size on a 32bit platform.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Neal Pollack<neal.poll...@sun.com> wrote: > On 06/16/09 02:39 PM, roland wrote: >> >> so, we have a 128bit fs, but only support for 1tb on 32bit? >> >> i`d call that a bug, isn`t it ? is there a bugid for this? ;) >> > > Well, opinion is welcome. > I'd call it an RFE. > > With 64 bit versions of the CPU chips so inexpensive these days, > how much money do you want me to invest in moving modern features > and support to old versions of the OS? > > I mean, Microsoft could, on a technical level, backport all new features > from > Vista and Windows Seven to Windows 95. But if they did that, their current > offering > would lag, since all the engineers would be working on the older stuff. > > Heck, you can buy a 64 bit CPU motherboard very very cheap. The staff that > we do have > are working on modern features for the 64bit version, rather than spending > all their time > "in the rear-view mirror". Live life forward. Upgrade. > Changing all the data structures in the 32 bit OS to handle super larger > disks, is, well, sorta > like trying to get a Pentium II to handle HD Video. I'm sure, with enough > time and money, > you might find a way. But is it worth it? Or is it cheaper to buy a new > pump? > > Neal > > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
