Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 29 Jul 1996 19:24:37 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Stan wrote:
>BTW, that's a lot more than .75 MB ... it's 3 MB.
Well, we are both right! It turns out the label table expansion size
had been changed in 5.0 from .75 MB to 3 MB. The attached example
from my system shows a mixture of .75 MB and 3 MB label table extents.
The concept remains the same. When label table expands, it need exactly
.75MB or 3MB; otherwise, the expansion fails. In addition, label table
can have multiple extent blocks (maximum 15 blocks or 300 extents to be
exact).
Paul Wang (408) 988-7378
SolutionSoft Systems, Inc. [log in to unmask]
Example:
$4 ($30) nmdebug > fv 11.800 "t_extent_block_entry,true"
RECORD
VERSION : 10
LT_ENTRY_TYPE : LT_EXTENT_BLOCK
NUM_EXTENTS_IN_BLK : 8
FCTS0 : be
FCTS1 :
DAY : 84
HOUR : 4
MINUTE : 2
SECOND : 0
TENTHS : 7
PARENT_LABEL_OFFSET : 600
PREV_EXTENT_BLK_OFFSET : 0
EXTENT_BLOCK :
[ 1 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 6e0
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c10 <- .75 MB + 4K header
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 0
[ 2 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 65270
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c00 <- .75 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : c10
[ 3 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 110700
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c00 <- .75 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 1810
[ 4 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 111300
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c00 <- .75 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 2410
[ 5 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 12c1e0
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c00 <- .75 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 3010
[ 6 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : b0bf0
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c00 <- .75 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 3c10
[ 7 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 2c2ac0
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : c00 <- .75 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 4810
[ 8 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 1e1a20
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : 3000 <- 3 MB
VOL_SET_INDEX : 1
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 5410
[ 9 ]:
EXTENT_SECTOR_ADDR : 0
SECTORS_IN_EXTENT : 0
VOL_SET_INDEX : 0
FILE_SECTOR_OFFSET : 0
|
|
|