UFS2 limits

[matt donovan]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student.uu.se>wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:58:11PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
> >
> > Erik Trulsson writes:
> >
> > >  >  Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
> > >  >  If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32
> > >  > bits?  Or is it possible but not done for historical or
> > >  > policy reasons, and if so what are they?
> > >
> > >  It probably could be expanded to 32 bits if that was deemed
> > >  useful.  Doing that would of course require re-creating any
> > >  existing filesystems since the on-disk format would change, which
> > >  would be a PITA for users, but certainly possible.
> >
> >       I seem to remember at least one case (3.x -> 4.0 ????) where a
> > major version change had no upgrade path - to get the new stuff you
> > had to reinstall.
>
> You are probably thinking of the 4.x -> 5.x upgrade where you pretty much
> had to reinstall if you wanted to switch from UFS1 to UFS2. (But you could
> of course keep using UFS1 if you wanted.)
>
> >       But I agree there's no reason based on current evidence to do
> > this.
> >       Thanks.
> >
> >
> >                               Robert Huff
>
> --
> <Insert your favourite quote here.>
> Erik Trulsson
> ertr1013 at student.uu.se
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>

Kind of hard to get XFS in freeBSD with it being a "dead" filesystem that is
no longer being developed, probably to port it it would need a lot of code
changes.