Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: scottl@samsco.org Cc: ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org, drosih@rpi.edu, current@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem Message-ID: <200506061955.j56JsvcS019388@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <42A453B5.3020006@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 ... cough
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506061955.j56JsvcS019388>