home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tivoli!TIVOLI.COM!stuart
- From: stuart@TIVOLI.COM (Stuart Jarriel)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
- Subject: Re: Disk Array & 2GB HP-UX limit
- Message-ID: <4121@tivoli.UUCP>
- Date: 15 Sep 92 22:24:11 GMT
- References: <51980002@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com> <BuBwMI.MFC@cup.hp.com> <1992Sep12.005322.3016@polari>
- Sender: news@tivoli.UUCP
- Organization: Tivoli Systems, Inc
- Lines: 18
-
-
- |> >
- |> Why would it take 64 bit pointers to address >4GB file systems? After all,
- |> we're not necessarily talking about >4GB *files* (which would require
- |> such pointers), we're talking about >4GB *volumes*. It's really a stupid
- |> limitation that should have nothing to do with the 32 bit limit of
- |> pointers. After all, we're not talking about a pointer based from the
- |> beginning of the logical volume when we address the contents of a given file.
- |>
- |> Or are we? :-)
-
- What will fsck do if it cant open the device as a raw device and seek to
- the end of the 'file'. I understand your point, but most current UNIX
- file-systems make no distiction between the files in the file-system and
- the device-files that access the file system (from a pure read/write/open
- ioctl standpoint).
-
- stuart
-