>> I vaguely remember a discussion about this a few months back.
>> If I remember, the reasoning was it would unnecessarily slow
>> down smaller systems that would never have block devices in
>> the 4-28T range attached.
>
>4k page size * 2GB = 8TB.
Try it.
If your drive (array) is larger than 512byte*4G (4TB) linux will eat
your data.
drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c, in submit_bh()
> bh->b_rsector = bh->b_blocknr * (bh->b_size >> 9);
But it shouldn't cause data corruptions:
It was discussed a few months ago, and iirc LVM refuses to create too
large volumes.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Matthew Wilcox
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Andreas Dilger
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Matthew Wilcox
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Eric W. Biederman
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit system... Martin Dalecki
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Rik van Riel
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Jes Sorensen
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Eric W. Biederman
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Matthew Wilcox
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems LA Walsh
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Manfred Spraul
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Matthew Wilcox
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems LA Walsh
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Manfred Spraul
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Jesse Pollard
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Dan Hollis
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Jesse Pollard
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Jonathan Morton
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems Jesse Pollard
- Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems LA Walsh

