Subject: Re: 2.0 and >2T filesystems
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 11/21/2005 15:50:46
[This is a reply to an off-list message. The sender's mailhost is
blocking on SORBS, though, so I can't reply off-list, and the point is
a good enough one to make on-list anyway.]
>> Well, I'm now just using /dev/raid0d, and it does what $WORK wants,
>> so I doubt I'll get a mandate to do anything as experimental as
>> trying 3.x or -current.
> [...] please check carefully that the filesystem works properly, via
> checksum compares etc.
Well, I did that with the 1T barrier in the first round of this, so I
don't expect problems. But your point is good; I'll see if I can't
think of something to do which will provoke any such errors which may
> It would not surprise me, in the older code in 2.0 and even in
> -current, if there were still some 32-bit related bugs or limits.
Isn't legacy code fun? :-þ
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B