Date: Sat, 1 Apr 95 14:40:22 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, bugs@ns1.win.net, gary@palmer.demon.co.uk, hackers@FreeBSD.org, tom@haven.uniserve.com Subject: Re: 4 gig st15150n disk setups Message-ID: <9504012140.AA11175@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199504011335.FAA01579@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Apr 1, 95 05:35:33 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just to clarify what Bruce is saying: If someone were to create a file that > was >2GB, BAD things would happen. The system currently considers any blocks > >2GB and <4GB as file metadata (for containing indirect blocks). Not only > would this certainly cause the machine to panic, it would almost certainly > cause random filesystem corruption. > I'll try to fix as many of these potential problems as possible before the > release. I was under the impression that these were atomic block offsets -- NOT byte offsets. The appropriate error range would in fact be >= 2^31 (2G) * block_size to < 2^32 (4G) * block_size. For a block size of 512, this is 1 <= x < 2 terrabytes. Correct me if this is wrong. The problem is the need to use a signed compare instead of an AND? Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504012140.AA11175>