Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:11:51 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, monboso@masternet.it, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xfs not working properly Message-ID: <199603050011.RAA06970@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199603042350.PAA18830@Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Mar 4, 96 03:50:41 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >And there is the real fix (go to device/extent based caching and > > I don't agree with this. I prefer the existing model. The vnode/inode "dissociation" code is broken (remember the "free vnode isn't" panic?). My kludge around the problem is only a kludge. The big mess is really the seperation of lock state into routines that must be correctly duplicated for each and every file system (one of the failures of the MSDOSFS is that this duplication is not correct in the MSDOSFS case). It's a common function, it shoukd take place in common code. I'd be happy to discuss the bogosities in the UFS ihash code in detail with you. > >clean up most of vfs_subr.c, especially the vclean crap), which > >introduces a 2G limit on logical device size instead of just a > >2G limit on open file size. Unless we eat the additional overhead > >for 64 bit offsets in the VM systems. > > The file size limit is currently 1TB in FreeBSD. I have no interest in going > backwards. What is the logical device size limit? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603050011.RAA06970>