On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:33:16PM -0500, Peter Kimball wrote:
>> I created a blank 1GB disk image, created an XFS filesystem on that image,
>> and mounted it on a loopback device using the ino64 flag.
>> I wrote a bunch of data to the filesystem (lots of small files),
>> approximately 600MB.
>> At this point, I think I have a filesystem in which inodes use 64-bit
>> addresses, even if the actual address value would fit in 32 bits. I would
>> expect any program that can't handle 64-bit addresses to barf when trying to
>> access any data on the filesystem.
> You will never not see 64-bit inodes on a filesystem that small ever.
> Try to create a (sparse) 10TB loop image, and create some deep
> directories in it. This should create some larger inodes number for
> you if you had it mounted with the inode64 flag. You can verify that
> by checking that the inode number returned from the stat systsem call
> or from ls -i is larger than 32 bits.
Thank you for that guide, Christoph. I followed your directions and the
directory tree I created included some >32-bit inode numbers so I was able to
successfully test all of our NFS clients.
From what I'd read, I thought that the ino64 mount option would do the work for
me (bring 32-bit inode numbers into 64-bit range), apparently that is not the
case. This method worked great, hopefully the next person to search can find
this happy thread.