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

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:52:52AM -0600, Tom Hart wrote:
> > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > >On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:46:13PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > >>The reason for the limit is because the address space on IA32 architecture
> > >>is 32 bit.  Now, you _could_ of course change the kernel interfaces to 
> > >>allow
> > >>for larger memory objects and only limit mapping windows to 4gb.  This 
> > >>might
> > >
> > >
> > >Or you could just use a 64bit machine such as an alpha ? :)
> > >
> > >Always looking for a hardware solution to a software problem,
> > 
> > So then the problem goes away *for now*. Remember that hard drive sizes 
> > have this habit of doubling every year or so. Isn't this a re-statement 
> > of "640 K ought to be enough for anyone"?
> 
> True, it's not a solution forever.

Mmh, I wonder about that.  After all, 2^64 bits are enough to store 99
years of 1280*1024, 24 bit movies (with 50 pictures per second)
uncompressed.  And this leaves you 32061 tera bytes free for some music,
books, and the occasional email you write ;)

Even if we ignore technical limitations, at one time we will just not be
able to produce enough content to fill all that hard disk space.  At that
time, the way that disk space is used will change a lot.  Definitely we will
hit the limitations of ext2 (I wonder how long a filesystem check would
take ;)

So, with the software base we are talking about, 2^64 _will_ be plenty. 
Everything that might reach that limit will look unlike to the (file)
systems we are using today.

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU      http://www.gnu.org    marcus@gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/