1279 mounts
Subsystems (2)
I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes. The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore. I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch. Also, CONFIG_ option is gone, because it made the code ugly.
Majors part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
NFS part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
Userland for NFS:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask me for patches, get them and disappear into the void. I hear nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS server code, since fixed). I am thinking about submitting, but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate with LANANA...
-- Pete
Hello:
Pete Zaitcev wrote,
Quoted 12 lines
I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes. The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore. I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch. Also,
CONFIG_option is gone, because it made the code ugly.Majors part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
NFS part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
Userland for NFS:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
Quoted 2 lines
Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask me for patches, get them and disappear into the void.
Heh, one of them would be me! :-D
Quoted 3 lines
I hear nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS server code, since fixed).
The requirement for such a large number of mounts does not exist for me anymore so the patches never went into the production environment for me.
Quoted 2 lines
I am thinking about submitting, but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate with LANANA...
IMHO, the Linux kernel's inability to handle mounts > 256 mounts is a deficiency.
AFAIK, FreeBSD does not have this problem. I would really appreciate it if these patches made it into the kernel so that I wont be surprised to realize that Linux cant do more than 256 mounts out of the box the next time I try it.
Zaitcev, thanx for making those patches available in the first place. Oh, will you be rolling the user land patches to util-linux to the RedHat RPMS?
-- Shanu
Signature · 6 lines
Workers of the world, arise! You have nothing to lose but your chairs. _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 12 lines · Pete Zaitcev
I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes. The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore. I split the unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch. Also,
CONFIG_option is gone, because it made the code ugly.Majors part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff
NFS part:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff
Userland for NFS:
http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff
Quoted 7 lines
Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask me for patches, get them and disappear into the void. I hear nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS server code, since fixed). I am thinking about submitting, but if users do not ask, why add extra bloat and negotiate with LANANA...
I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device numbers...
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 7 lines
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
From: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device numbers...
Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part. There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that.
-- Pete
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 11 lines · Pete Zaitcev
Quoted 7 lines
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
From: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device numbers...
Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part. There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that.
Sure, I know. In these cases getting the limit from 255 to around 800 is enough so the mount patch isn't even needed.
- Panu -
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 11 lines · Pete Zaitcev
Quoted 7 lines
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:25:33 +0300 (EEST)
From: Panu Matilainen <[email protected]>I've got quite a few users here who "need" this functionality and it's included in our RH-based custom kernels. Having it as a separate patch for 2.4 is no problem, for 2.5 I'm hoping we finally move to 32bit device numbers...
Mind, we only ship the unnamed majors part, but not the NFS part. There is no word from util-linux maintainer about required changes to mount(8), so I was cautious about doint that.
Sure, I know. In these cases getting the limit from 255 to around 800 is enough so the mount patch isn't even needed.
- Panu -