Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Maximum file size in 2.8 32 bit

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Chuck Hoskins

unread,
May 16, 2002, 8:11:28 PM5/16/02
to
Just a quick question. . . .

What is the maximum file size for Solaris 8 in 32 bit?

Thanks in advance

Akop Pogosian

unread,
May 16, 2002, 11:05:42 PM5/16/02
to

> Thanks in advance

The file size limit should be the same as in 64-bit solaris (whatever
it is) as long as you manipulate it with large file aware
applications.


-akop

Rich Teer

unread,
May 17, 2002, 12:38:50 AM5/17/02
to
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Chuck Hoskins wrote:

> Just a quick question. . . .
>
> What is the maximum file size for Solaris 8 in 32 bit?

2 GB - substantially more if you make your application
large file aware.

--
Rich Teer

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net

Paul Eggert

unread,
May 17, 2002, 3:46:41 AM5/17/02
to
Rich Teer <ri...@rite-group.com> writes:

> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Chuck Hoskins wrote:
>
> > Just a quick question. . . .
> >
> > What is the maximum file size for Solaris 8 in 32 bit?
>
> 2 GB - substantially more if you make your application
> large file aware.

Yes, and assuming you use UFS, the limit is 1 TiB minus 1 B, or
1,099,511,627,775 bytes. Here's a sample file that comes pretty close
to the limit. It was created with a 32-bit app.

$ ls -l big
-rw-rw-r-- 1 eggert eggert 1099243192379 May 17 00:41 big

Presumably other filesystems have higher limits. A Terabyte doesn't
go as far as it used to.

Joerg Schilling

unread,
May 17, 2002, 5:55:05 AM5/17/02
to
In article <7wwuu3j...@sic.twinsun.com>,
Paul Eggert <egg...@twinsun.com> wrote:

>Yes, and assuming you use UFS, the limit is 1 TiB minus 1 B, or
>1,099,511,627,775 bytes. Here's a sample file that comes pretty close
>to the limit. It was created with a 32-bit app.
>
>$ ls -l big
>-rw-rw-r-- 1 eggert eggert 1099243192379 May 17 00:41 big
>
>Presumably other filesystems have higher limits. A Terabyte doesn't
>go as far as it used to.


I did not check SCSI disk standards for some time, but as long as there
are only 32 bits for sector addresses, you currently cannot go bejond
1 TB even if the FS would allow more.

--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schi...@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

Alan Coopersmith

unread,
May 17, 2002, 1:25:14 PM5/17/02
to
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes in comp.unix.solaris:

|I did not check SCSI disk standards for some time, but as long as there
|are only 32 bits for sector addresses, you currently cannot go bejond
|1 TB even if the FS would allow more.

That's what RAID is for.

--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith al...@alum.calberkeley.org
http://soar.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: Alan.Coo...@Sun.COM
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Joerg Schilling

unread,
May 17, 2002, 2:46:57 PM5/17/02
to
In article <ac3edq$2mlo$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,

Alan Coopersmith <al...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>|I did not check SCSI disk standards for some time, but as long as there
>|are only 32 bits for sector addresses, you currently cannot go bejond
>|1 TB even if the FS would allow more.
>
>That's what RAID is for.

If you have a passive RAID (handled by the host processor), you are right.

If you have an active RAID, then the communication to the RAID controler
is done via SCSI commands.

0 new messages