[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2nd attemt at reviving the filesystem limit discussion.

From: M. Gerards
Subject: Re: 2nd attemt at reviving the filesystem limit discussion.
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:05:13 +0100
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1

Quoting "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@kemisten.nu>:

> Was there any agreement on how to procced with fixing the 1GB limit?
> The discussion died of after Marcus reposted a discussion about not
> mapping the whole disk to memory.
> Here are the archives of the threads:
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/hurd-devel/2002q4/000135.html
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/hurd-devel/2002q1/000223.html

This thread is also relevant in the discussion:

I wonder what ideas Neal had, I couldn't find a thread where he described his 

An advantage of Rolands solution to the problem that it makes it easy to 
implement ordered writes (Or am I really confused?). I still don't understand 
Thomas' solution, what will the implementation look like? The filesystem can 
map a mapping window, and simply use it? Another thing I wonder: Why do memory 
objects have a maximum size of 4GB? Isn't it possible to create a memory object 
with the size of the entire store and use mapping windows? (Or am I confused 
again? :)). Can someone please describe how this works in more detail if I'm 
wrong? I assume more people are confused by this.


Marco Gerards

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]