From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jul 6 17:46:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8984237B400 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 17:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264ED43E09 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 17:46:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.5/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g670kiLA064201; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 17:46:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.5/8.12.4/Submit) id g670kiQ3064200; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 17:46:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 17:46:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200207070046.g670kiQ3064200@apollo.backplane.com> To: Bernd Walter Cc: Terry Lambert , Darren Pilgrim , ticso@cicely.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How does swap work address spacewise? References: <20020705234126.GA12183@atrbg11.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> <3D2640A7.3EA2236B@pantherdragon.org> <20020706020656.GL48977@cicely5.cicely.de> <3D2762FE.9D9E0378@pantherdragon.org> <20020706220720.GG23704@cicely5.cicely.de> <3D277274.B5F3CE58@pantherdragon.org> <3D2776BE.A39A1110@mindspring.com> <20020706231346.GJ23704@cicely5.cicely.de> <200207062342.g66NgMri063859@apollo.backplane.com> <20020707001019.GK23704@cicely5.cicely.de> <20020707004304.GL23704@cicely5.cicely.de> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> > :> > Physical block numbers are 512-byte sized, with a range of 2^32 :> > in -stable. This also winds up being 2TB. So increasing the fragment :> > size does not help in -stable. :> :> It's a proven fact that there is a 1T limit somewhere which was :> explained with physical block numbers beeing signed. : :-- :B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de fsck and newfs would be unhappy with a 2TB sized filesystem (in stable), at least one with 512 byte sectors, due to internal math overflows but I think that's the only 1TB vs 2TB issue. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message