| Folkert Rienstra 2007-04-07, 7:14 am |
| "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:57jtgeF2dn5maU1@mid.individual.net
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maxim S. Shatskih <maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. I think that if it supports files > 100GB, then it should support
> them without surprises. Of course, if you say ''commodity'' = ''not
> really for mission critical stuff'', then I can agree.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't know. Linux ext2/3 has a 2TB file size limit.
> But that was actually not my point. My point is that if it is
> supported, then it should be supported well. If it is not supported
> that is better than if you think you can use it, but on actual usage
> things start to go wrong.
Nothing goes 'wrong', you babblebot moron, it only gets slow.
> I believe this whole thread shows that ;-)
What this thread shows is that you don't know anything, babblebot, that you
are just feeding on others for information to badmouth MS, you Lunix zealot.
>
> So ''substandard'' = ''the features are there but you should not really use
> them to their limits'', a.k.a. ''we did it, but we did not really do it right''.
It's the OS showing it's limits, not the file system.
>
> Arno
|