[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: Tom Hart
Subject: Re: 2nd attemt at reviving the filesystem limit discussion.
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:12:24 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1

Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
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.

Doesn't this kind of go against the Hurdish "no arbitrary limits" philosophy, ie. no MATHPATHLEN, MAXHOSTLEN, etc.?

I agree that 2^64 bits is amazingly huge. But doesn't this sort of assumption tend to lead to problems later on down the road?

   /                                               |
  /  Tom Hart                                      |
 |   hartte13@BrandonU.ca                          |
  \  "rmTFM - Build consistent interfaces."        |

reply via email to

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