From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 24 14:21:45 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63F6D52 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ADF92317 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rAOELc5j085820; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:21:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id rAOELcU5085817; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:21:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:21:38 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: John-Mark Gurney Subject: Re: What are the limits for FFS file systems? 10+ years out of date.. In-Reply-To: <20131124061218.GQ7069@funkthat.com> Message-ID: References: <20131124061218.GQ7069@funkthat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:21:38 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:21:46 -0000 On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Attached is a patch that bring this up to date.. This was written back > when we were using UFS1 w/ 32bit block addresses... Things have changes > now that UFS2 is standard... > > The big thing is listing the memory requirements for fsck as the main > limiting factor on FS size... > > I've had Kirk review the patch, and he's fine w/ it... > > Shall I just commit it? fsck should be either &man.fsck.8; or fsck, depending on context. There is a duplicated "the" in the first paragraph. igor -Rz should be run on the patched file.