RE: [Zope] Data.fs 2GB problem ...
I don't think that is the case under Linux with a 64-bit userspace. Someone on this list (Bill?) had indicated it worked to have large files on ext2 under 64 bit architectures. Sadly, that excludes UltraSPARC, because its user-space is still 32 bit, but I guess this limitation doesn't exist on Alpha, Itanium, or PA-RISC, but you may still need a 2.4 kernel for Itanium if you are to use that as a platform. Next year, my company is likely to migrate our ZEO Storage Servers to an intel architecture from Linux/Sparc, and will likely use ReiserFS at that time, since it has been in the mainsteam 2.4.1+ kernels, and is reported to be stable on IA32... Sean -----Original Message----- From: Takashi Linzbichler [mailto:takashi.linzbichler@smartferret.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 9:41 AM To: Gitte Wange Cc: zope@zope.org Subject: Re: [Zope] Data.fs 2GB problem ... Hi, Gitte ! Gitte Wange wrote:
hmmm... isn't a filesystem limit? what fs are you using?
No I don't think so. We are using ext2 but the problem could be the python interprenter as Andreas mentioned ..
Not sure about that. If you're using ext2 and a Kernel < 2.4.x or a fIlesystem created under a Kernel < 2.4.x, you're quite out of luck, sorry to say that. Check the list-archives for further infos. regards, ta -------------------------------------------------------------------------- smartferret it-consulting Dipl.-Ing. Linzbichler KEG Dipl.-Ing. Takashi Veikko Linzbichler Tannhofweg 28/3 A-8044 Graz, Austria Tel.: 0316 / 39 89 40 -0 Fax: 0316 / 39 89 40 -20 Mobil: 0676 / 31 26 286 eMail: takashi.linzbichler@smartferret.com WWW: http://www.smartferret.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 11:19, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
I don't think that is the case under Linux with a 64-bit userspace. Someone on this list (Bill?) had indicated it worked to have large files on ext2 under 64 bit architectures.
Correct on both accounts.
Sadly, that excludes UltraSPARC, because its user-space is still 32 bit, but I guess this limitation doesn't exist on Alpha, Itanium, or PA-RISC, but you may still need a 2.4 kernel for Itanium if you are to use that as a platform.
Well, not all PA-RISC is running a 64 bit OS. I am not 100% sure, but I do believe that you can't have less than a 2.4.0 kernel on IA64. IIRC, support for that arch went into 2.4, and not 2.2. I could be wrong, it has been a while since I've run on an IA64.
Next year, my company is likely to migrate our ZEO Storage Servers to an intel architecture from Linux/Sparc, and will likely use ReiserFS at that time, since it has been in the mainsteam 2.4.1+ kernels, and is reported to be stable on IA32...
Personally, I'd recommend XFS over ReiserFS.
Bill, why XFS? cheers, garry On 17 Oct 2001, at 17:52, Bill Anderson wrote: Subject: RE: [Zope] Data.fs 2GB problem ... From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org> To: zope@zope.org Date sent: 17 Oct 2001 17:52:12 -0600
On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 11:19, sean.upton@uniontrib.com wrote:
I don't think that is the case under Linux with a 64-bit userspace. Someone on this list (Bill?) had indicated it worked to have large files on ext2 under 64 bit architectures.
Correct on both accounts.
Sadly, that excludes UltraSPARC, because its user-space is still 32 bit, but I guess this limitation doesn't exist on Alpha, Itanium, or PA-RISC, but you may still need a 2.4 kernel for Itanium if you are to use that as a platform.
Well, not all PA-RISC is running a 64 bit OS. I am not 100% sure, but I do believe that you can't have less than a 2.4.0 kernel on IA64. IIRC, support for that arch went into 2.4, and not 2.2. I could be wrong, it has been a while since I've run on an IA64.
Next year, my company is likely to migrate our ZEO Storage Servers to an intel architecture from Linux/Sparc, and will likely use ReiserFS at that time, since it has been in the mainsteam 2.4.1+ kernels, and is reported to be stable on IA32...
Personally, I'd recommend XFS over ReiserFS.
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
+-------------------------------------------+ Garry Steedman mailto:gs@styrax.com Styrax Associates http://www.styrax.com/ "The Good Man has no shape." +-------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 2001-10-17 at 20:40, Garry Steedman wrote:
Bill,
why XFS?
A few basic reasons. I've done a LOT of filesystem testing (mmm terabyte filesystems...). in my tests, XFS came out to be the best all around performance. Especially on large files. It recovers from a power-off faster than ReiserFS, as well. Bill
participants (3)
-
Bill Anderson -
Garry Steedman -
sean.upton＠uniontrib.com