On 6 Jun, Scott Long wrote: > Garance A Drosihn wrote: >> At 1:05 AM -0400 6/6/05, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Scott Long wrote: >>> >>>> It's a huge win for CPU overhead in the filesystem, especially >>>> when we start talking about increasing the size of m_links >>>> field and possibly going 64-bit inode numbers. >>> >>> >>> Talking about going to 64-bit inode numbers, how would we deal >>> with the change in stat(2)? >> >> >> By making some sort of incompatible change to stat(2). This has >> been discussed from time-to-time. It's another change that I >> would have liked to have seen (at least for the stat routines) >> in 6.0, but right now I suspect it will not happen until 7.0. >> > > We can't go making incremental incompatibilities to the filesystem > without a good deal of planning. This is the type of thing that > would go into a 'UFS3'. I have some long-term plans here, but I > need to get the initial proof-of-concept journalling working before > I start to seriously consider what else would be in UFS3. cough ... larger cylinder groups ... coughReceived on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 17:55:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:35 UTC