Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:58:11 -0500 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 limits Message-ID: <18711.12995.251454.988166@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <20081109165314.GA89995@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109152835.N49145@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20081109165314.GA89995@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Erik Trulsson writes: > > Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion): > > If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32 > > bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or > > policy reasons, and if so what are they? > > It probably could be expanded to 32 bits if that was deemed > useful. Doing that would of course require re-creating any > existing filesystems since the on-disk format would change, which > would be a PITA for users, but certainly possible. I seem to remember at least one case (3.x -> 4.0 ????) where a major version change had no upgrade path - to get the new stuff you had to reinstall. But I agree there's no reason based on current evidence to do this. Thanks. Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18711.12995.251454.988166>