| 1 |
Hello, Jörg. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
| 4 |
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > The wikipedia page on Ext3 says that with a 1kB blocksize, the maximum |
| 7 |
> > file size is 16GB, but with a 2kB blocksize it's 256GB. Could it be |
| 8 |
> > you've somehow actually got a 1kB blocksize on the partition? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Where does such a strange limitation come from? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Haven't a clue. I would have expected the maximum file size to be a |
| 13 |
number of blocks, which makes it seem strange that doubling the block |
| 14 |
size multiplies max file size by 16. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Ext* started as a UFS "clone" and UFS filesize is limited to 2**63 while |
| 17 |
> UFS filesystem size is limited to 1 TB. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Just for ease of comparison, 16GB = 2**34 bytes = 2**24 1k blocks. 1TB = |
| 20 |
2**40 bytes. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> That is much more than you claim for Ext3 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'm not doing any claiming, since I'm not an expert on the subject. I |
| 25 |
was just drawing the OP's attention to something which might be useful. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Jörg |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |
Archives