Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Still Waiting for Inode fixes, ZZZZZZZZ
Keywords: inode, UNIX, news
Message-ID: <1989Dec7.125428.4682@virtech.uucp>
Date: 7 Dec 89 12:54:28 GMT
References: <1989Dec6.023924.1293@virtech.uucp> <12043@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.
Lines: 27

In article <12043@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon) writes:
> In article <1989Dec6.023924.1293@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
> >All you have to do is specify the number of inodes that you require
> >on the mkfs command line.
> 
> Yes, this is true.
> 
> >	mkfs /dev/rdsk/0s4 90000:90000
> 
> And that's the right syntax, but....
> 
> >Creates a 90,000 block file system with 90,000 inodes.
> 
> Except that inode numbers are stored in unsigned shorts, so you can't

Yes, yes, yes  I know that inode numbers are limited to 16 bits.  I was
only giving an example of how to specify the number of inodes & the thought
of the limit never crossed my mind.

Apologies to the entire net community.


-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conor P. Cahill     uunet!virtech!cpcahil      	703-430-9247	!
| Virtual Technologies Inc.,    P. O. Box 876,   Sterling, VA 22170     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+