UFS2 limits

[Erik Trulsson]

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