On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:35:32PM +0200, Louis V. Lambrecht wrote:
Yeah! Got a 500Gig eSATA mounted, 6 slices. The problem is not how
to address the drive, the problem is to backup all that data. That
is, eventually, 4 gig per DVD, or XFS, or a cluster. My main database
I can't live
On 21/04/2008, at 1:53 PM, Matthew Weigel wrote:
David Gwynne wrote:
solaris suffers from this problem. you cant use big disks with
32bit solaris kernels.
For UFS, at least, but doesn't ZFS on i386 (not amd64) scale?
this is a block layer problem, nothing to do with the filesystems. if
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 22:53 -0500, Matthew Weigel wrote:
David Gwynne wrote:
solaris suffers from this problem. you cant use big disks with 32bit
solaris kernels.
For UFS, at least, but doesn't ZFS on i386 (not amd64) scale?
The filesystem yes, but the block addressing no. I had to split
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 03:35:13PM -0400, Chris Zakelj wrote:
Matthew Weigel wrote:
Chris Zakelj wrote:
... I'm wondering if thought is being given on how to make the physical
size (not filesystem... I totally understand why those should be kept
small) limitation of
Travers Buda wrote:
I can certainly see various drive makers pushing capacity
irrespective of reliability. Germane to this case, some of them
reduce the reserve storage for bad sectors for that extra storage.
Going along with this, on a recent trip to my local computer megastore,
I
Chris Zakelj wrote:
... I'm wondering if
thought is being given on how to make the physical size (not
filesystem... I totally understand why those should be kept small)
limitation of http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#LargeDrive
http://www.openbsd.org/43.html
New Functionality:
...
o
Chris Zakelj wrote:
Travers Buda wrote:
I can certainly see various drive makers pushing capacity
irrespective of reliability. Germane to this case, some of them
reduce the reserve storage for bad sectors for that extra storage.
Going along with this, on a recent trip to my local
Matthew Weigel wrote:
Chris Zakelj wrote:
... I'm wondering if thought is being given on how to make the
physical size (not filesystem... I totally understand why those
should be kept small) limitation of
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#LargeDrive
http://www.openbsd.org/43.html
New
On 21/04/2008, at 4:46 AM, Matthew Weigel wrote:
Chris Zakelj wrote:
a non-issue on 64-bit platforms
Whether a system is 64-bit or not isn't very relevant to this -
that mostly establishes what the memory address space is, *not* the
size of integers that can be used by the system.
David Gwynne wrote:
solaris suffers from this problem. you cant use big disks with 32bit
solaris kernels.
For UFS, at least, but doesn't ZFS on i386 (not amd64) scale?
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker
unique idempot.ent
10 matches
Mail list logo
