> > But, it seems there might be a simpler `half-way' case which won't
> > require lots of vm reworking, for files between 2gb and the maximum
> > size of userland, normally 3GB.
> True, but is that enough of a difference that it pays for the
> complexity?
It depends what sort of hacks are required for >32-bit files sizes on
intel anyhow. I say, if it makes things yuck elsewhere, then we
shouldn't do it.
If we can support 2-3 GB files cheaply enough, then it may be worth
doing.
Likewise for >4GB of physical memory. I don't see the point in having
64GB of ram in a box, when any one app. can only access 3GB at most
anyhow, which will be the case no matter what.
If it comes to this, people should get a real machine.
> 10 GB isn't "obscenely large", IMO... I'd reserve that for files in
> the 200-300 GB range (larger than most filesystems.)
actually... 300 GB isn't large either by comparison so big boxen.
Used to use a large SGI box with low TB on disk space (and 8GB of
ram) and we often had files in the 10 to 500 GB size simple because
we didn't use compression and it was easy enough to do.
(large render/animation files. fun stuff)
> Perhaps I'm just spoiled; none of the systems I use regularly has
> less than 11 GB of disk...
I would think low-end marke today is about 8.6GB or so. Give it a
year or so (when everyone will have 400Mhz+ P II's) people will
probably have 18/24GB drives at the low end.
-cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html