[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130214061002.GM26694@dastard>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:10:02 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Anand Avati <anand.avati@...il.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...m.fraunhofer.de>,
sandeen@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, gluster-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] regressions due to 64-bit ext4 directory cookies
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:20:52PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Telldir() and seekdir() are basically implementation horrors for any
> file system that is using anything other than a simple array of
> directory entries ala the V7 Unix file system or the BSD FFS. For any
> file system which is using a more advanced data structure, like
> b-trees hash trees, etc, there **can't** possibly be a "offset" into a
> readdir stream.
I'll just point you to this:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=136081996316453&w=2
so you can see that XFS implements what you say can't possibly be
done. ;)
FWIW, that post only talked about the data segment. I didn't mention
that XFS has 2 other segments in the directory file (both beyond
EOF) for the directory data indexes. One contains the name-hash btree
index used for name based lookups and the other contains a freespace
index for tracking free space in the data segment.
IOWs persistent, deterministic, low cost telldir/seekdir behaviour
was a problem solved in the 1990s. :)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists