--qM81t570OJUP5TU/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 08:41:54AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> >> Note: this is not correct.  While I do not question the idea that it
> >> could be EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL to use either an ffs1 or ffs2 file
> >> system for a multi-TB file system, it can be done.
>=20
> I think that characterization is a bit inaccurate.
>=20
> At work we're using ffs1 for a filesystem just epsilon under 2T (it's a
> 1k/8k filesystem; we'd make it bigger except the RAID card it's on
> doesn't support logical drives >2T), and it works fine.  What do you
> expect to be "EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL" about it?

fsck time on reboot after unclean shutdown.

Actual operation should be fine.

It also depends on how well your drives work.

It can also depend on where your pain points are. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--qM81t570OJUP5TU/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD4DBQFF/daPWz+3JHUci9cRAovjAJdUNUwDyODzE1MgUpn5WocnI1ptAJ9AEGSa
Ms/oIFS78GLIh6zYGbdBFw==
=m20G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qM81t570OJUP5TU/--