Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:55:54 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 limits Message-ID: <20081109195554.GB90867@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <18711.12995.251454.988166@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109152835.N49145@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20081109165314.GA89995@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <18711.12995.251454.988166@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:58:11PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > > Erik Trulsson writes: > > > > Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion): > > > If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32 > > > bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or > > > policy reasons, and if so what are they? > > > > It probably could be expanded to 32 bits if that was deemed > > useful. Doing that would of course require re-creating any > > existing filesystems since the on-disk format would change, which > > would be a PITA for users, but certainly possible. > > I seem to remember at least one case (3.x -> 4.0 ????) where a > major version change had no upgrade path - to get the new stuff you > had to reinstall. You are probably thinking of the 4.x -> 5.x upgrade where you pretty much had to reinstall if you wanted to switch from UFS1 to UFS2. (But you could of course keep using UFS1 if you wanted.) > But I agree there's no reason based on current evidence to do > this. > Thanks. > > > Robert Huff -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081109195554.GB90867>