[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: Joshua Judson Rosen
Subject: Re: 2nd attemt at reviving the filesystem limit discussion.
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:04:50 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

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"?

Well, I think that it's not so much that buying a 64-bit machine makes
the problem go away only -for now-, but that it makes it go away only
for the people able to use that machine.... Fixing the software to be
smart enough to work around limitations of the hardware does a great
deal more good, because it's cheaper to then `fix it again' for
someone else by giving them a copy of the software than by giving them
a copy of the hardware ;)

I also think that p2 was kidding...

Attachment: pgptJ3vfpNEx2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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