From: robin_listas@es.invalid
On 2024-08-11 21:46, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "David W. Hodgins" writes:
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-10 22:49, bad sector wrote:
>
>>>> I ran mkfs.ext4 to format a new 4tb ssd to ext4 and got the alert
>>>> about *-O 64bit* and complied with it. Never seen it before, was
>>>> that a smart or useful move?
>>>>
>>> 64bit
>>> Enables the file system to be larger
>>> than 2^32 blocks. This feature is set automatically,
>>> as needed, but it can be useful to specify this feature
>>> explicitly if the file system might need to be resized
>>> larger than 2^32 blocks, even if it was smaller than
>>> that threshold when it was originally created. Note
>>> that some older kernels and older versions of e2fsprogs
>>> will not support file systems with this ext4 feature
>>> enabled.
>>>
>>> Doesn't explain the implications.
>
> Linux kernels from before (as far as I can see) 2.6.19 won’t be able to
> access the filesystem. Not likely to be a problem in practice unless you
> have a very old install.
Indeed, not a problem.
>
>> Seems clear to me. Format an ext4 file system with an install that
>> uses the 64 bit feature and it will not be readable or writeable using
>> a linux install that doesn't use it.
>
> ??? that is not what it says at all.
Right. If we are using distribution "Acme", doing ext4 in 64 or 32 will
not be a problem for "Acme". Nor for any other distro of a similar
vintage. If the feature is marked "experimental", work in progress,
there will be differences between implementations, but that is not the case.
It is things like size and number of inodes and metadata and number of
files, or data structure sizes in ram, that does a difference. And that
is not explained.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
