🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <338b8bba.11371914@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
Bryan Palmer <bpalmer@pcug.org.au> wrote:

>All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
>in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
>date: 12 Nov 1996)?

No. I'm using a 2.5G partition since November, with kernel 2.0.x.
The size limit was removed much earlier.

>If corrected, what is the current file size limit in the 2.1.xx
>series?

I don't think this matters. I't clearly beyond the sizes of hard disks
for the next years...

>And what is the most "stable" development system (oxymorons aside)
>since the the removal of the 2GB limit?

I'm using 2.0.30 without problems. However if you think 2.0.30 is too
much of an alpha version, try 2.0.29.

hjb


-- 
    Uncle Ed's Rule of Thumb:  Never use your thumb for a rule.
    You'll either hit it with a hammer or get a splinter in it.
	 

In article <338b8bba.11371914@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
Bryan Palmer <bpalmer@pcug.org.au> wrote:

>All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
>in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
>date: 12 Nov 1996)?

No. I'm using a 2.5G partition since November, with kernel 2.0.x.
The size limit was removed much earlier.

>If corrected, what is the current file size limit in the 2.1.xx
>series?

I don't think this matters. I't clearly beyond the sizes of hard disks
for the next years...

>And what is the most "stable" development system (oxymorons aside)
>since the the removal of the 2GB limit?

I'm using 2.0.30 without problems. However if you think 2.0.30 is too
much of an alpha version, try 2.0.29.

hjb


-- 
    Uncle Ed's Rule of Thumb:  Never use your thumb for a rule.
    You'll either hit it with a hammer or get a splinter in it.
	 

>>All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
>>in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
>>date: 12 Nov 1996)?
> 
> No. I'm using a 2.5G partition since November, with kernel 2.0.x.
> The size limit was removed much earlier.
> 
He is talking about filesize, not partitionsize.

>>If corrected, what is the current file size limit in the 2.1.xx
>>series?
> 
Don't know.

> I don't think this matters. I't clearly beyond the sizes of hard disks
> for the next years...
> 

What does not matter? In 3 years, there will be 50G harddisks.

>>And what is the most "stable" development system (oxymorons aside)
>>since the the removal of the 2GB limit?
> 
> I'm using 2.0.30 without problems. However if you think 2.0.30 is too
> much of an alpha version, try 2.0.29.

He is asking about developmentkernels. He wants to know a more or less
stable 2.1.x kernel.

-------------
The address is junk-mail-protected. Please remove the underscores to reply.

Martin Lohner                               \|/ ____ \|/
_lohner_@arcade.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de  "@'/ ,. \`@"
                                            /_| \__/ |_\
                                               \__U_/

On 27 May 1997 07:00:59 +0200, hans@grumbeer.inka.de (Hans-Joachim
Baader) writes:

>In article <338b8bba.11371914@newshost.pcug.org.au>,
>Bryan Palmer <bpalmer@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>
>>All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
>>in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
>>date: 12 Nov 1996)?
>
>No. I'm using a 2.5G partition since November, with kernel 2.0.x.
>The size limit was removed much earlier.

It's not the size of the filesystem which vexes me (I gather Linux
allows for filesystems in Terabytes), it is the size of individual
files. I am looking to do some computational work on a data set of
about 6Gb in size. I don't want to partion or pack the file; and as it
stands 2.0.xx Linux does not allow files beyond 2Gb.


_______________________________________________________________
Bryan Palmer
bpalmer@pcug.org.au
http://www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer/
PO Box 167, Woden ACT 2606, Australia

Bryan Palmer wrote:
> 
> All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
> in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
> date: 12 Nov 1996)?
> 
> If I am not correct, was it addressed elsewhere?
> 
> If corrected, what is the current file size limit in the 2.1.xx
> series?
> 
> And what is the most "stable" development system (oxymorons aside)
> since the the removal of the 2GB limit?
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> Bryan Palmer
> bpalmer@pcug.org.au
> http://www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer/
> PO Box 167, Woden ACT 2606, Australia

-- 


Hallo Brayan,



I have no experience with large files, but in an old Linux (to kernel
version 1.2 ) book I found follow facts to the ext2 filesystem:

maximal partion 2GB (4TB in come )
maximal filelength 16 GB

So if now greater Partitions are available it look like your file can to
be 16 GB great.



Bye Thomas

In article <338ED301.167E@mailserv.rz.fh-merseburg.de>,
 on Fri, 30 May 1997 14:15:45 +0100,
 Thomas Nowak <Thomas> writes:
>Bryan Palmer wrote:
>>
>> All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
>> in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
>> date: 12 Nov 1996)?
>>
>> If I am not correct, was it addressed elsewhere?
>>
>> If corrected, what is the current file size limit in the 2.1.xx
>> series?
>>
>> And what is the most "stable" development system (oxymorons aside)
>> since the the removal of the 2GB limit?
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________
>> Bryan Palmer
>> bpalmer@pcug.org.au
>> http://www.pcug.org.au/~bpalmer/
>> PO Box 167, Woden ACT 2606, Australia
>
>--
>
>
>Hallo Brayan,
>
>
>
>I have no experience with large files, but in an old Linux (to kernel
>version 1.2 ) book I found follow facts to the ext2 filesystem:
>
>maximal partion 2GB (4TB in come )
>maximal filelength 16 GB
>
>So if now greater Partitions are available it look like your file can to
>be 16 GB great.
>
>
>
>Bye Thomas

Hi,

The Linux ext2 fs architectural limit for file size is 4 GB (the file size is
stored as an unsigned 32 bits integer in the I-node). The actual implementation
in Linux limits it to 2 Gb (at least used to : it might have changed in latest
kernels).
Removing the 4 Gb file size limit requires file system layout changes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthieu Willm                        I do *NOT* speak for IBM ...
Work : mwillm@vnet.ibm.com
Home : willm@ibm.net

bpalmer@pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) writes:

>It's not the size of the filesystem which vexes me (I gather Linux
>allows for filesystems in Terabytes), it is the size of individual
>files. I am looking to do some computational work on a data set of
>about 6Gb in size. I don't want to partion or pack the file; and as it
>stands 2.0.xx Linux does not allow files beyond 2Gb.

I've heard suggested before to just use a raw partition instead of a
file.  For example, just go in as root and make /dev/sda3 owned by
you, then make a symlink to /dev/sda3 so your program will use it as
its data file.  I haven't heard how well this works in practice.

That wouldn't have helped me the other day, though.  I had a program
running like so:
	my_program > debug.log
Unfortunately, debug.log grew very fast, exceeding the size of the
filesystem.  However, by periodically doing:
	echo >debug.log
I would truncate the file, but the original program just kept writing
it's output.  The file size reached 1.5G before it died, but it only
took up a hundred megs or so.  Aren't holes wonderful?  Needless to
say, I was getting quite worried about the 2G file limit, even though
my filesystem was less than 1G.

--PC
--
DOE SHP @ NMFECC/LLNL (NERSC) ID 87

mwillm@vnet.ibm.com (Matthieu WILLM) writes:

> 
> In article <338ED301.167E@mailserv.rz.fh-merseburg.de>,
>  on Fri, 30 May 1997 14:15:45 +0100,
>  Thomas Nowak <Thomas> writes:
> >Bryan Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
> >> in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
> >> date: 12 Nov 1996)?
> >>
> >> If I am not correct, was it addressed elsewhere?
> >>
> >> If corrected, what is the current file size limit in the 2.1.xx
> >> series?
> >>
> >> And what is the most "stable" development system (oxymorons aside)
> >> since the the removal of the 2GB limit?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________

> >Bye Thomas
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The Linux ext2 fs architectural limit for file size is 4 GB (the file size is
> stored as an unsigned 32 bits integer in the I-node). The actual implementation
> in Linux limits it to 2 Gb (at least used to : it might have changed in latest
> kernels).
> Removing the 4 Gb file size limit requires file system layout changes.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthieu Willm                        I do *NOT* speak for IBM ...
> Work : mwillm@vnet.ibm.com
> Home : willm@ibm.net

The problem is, that the file pointer has to be done in a posix compliant
way, which means that the largest data type you can decleare is a 32-bit
long (long long isn't allowed yet).  It has to be signed to allow for
backwards seeking.  IIRC, there's already support in the kernel, and the
change in the libc should come soon after glibc becomes the new stable standard.

-- 
Frank Sweetser rasmusin@wpi.edu fsweetser@blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.edu RedHat Linux 2.0.30 i486     | at public servers
You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it
doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on.
		-- Hepler, Systems Design 182

In article <E3175BA8EC1507AD.1EEFC145517CC28A.FD7CE5A68C0913A9@library-proxy.airnews.net>, Hans-Joachim Baader wrote:
>>All, am I correct in assuming that the 2GB file limit in the ext2 fs
>>in Linux has been addressed in patch 2.1.9 (in file: fs/ext2/file.c
>>date: 12 Nov 1996)?
>
>No. I'm using a 2.5G partition since November, with kernel 2.0.x.
>The size limit was removed much earlier.

The problem is only with files on ext2-fs partitions, not partition, 
device file, or a file on partition with better FS problem.