[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611042017190.24713@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:18:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
To: Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net>
Cc: dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>,
Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New filesystem for Linux
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>> > If it overflows, it increases crash count instead. So really you have >
>>> 2^47
>>> > transactions or 65536 crashes and 2^31 transactions between each crash.
>>>
>>> it seems to me that you only need to be able to represent a range of the
>>> most recent 65536 crashes... and could have an online process which goes
>>> about "refreshing" old objects to move them forward to the most recent
>>> crash state. as long as you know the minimm on-disk crash count you can
>>> use it as an offset.
>>
>> After 65536 crashes you have to run spadfsck --reset-crash-counts. Maybe I
>> add that functionality to kernel driver too, so that it will be formally
>> corect.
>
> Is there any reason you can not make these fields 64 or even 128 bits in size
> to increase these "limits" dramatically?
Yes
First --- you need a table of 65536 entries. Table of 4G entries would be
too large.
Second --- it will make structures larger and thus some operations (like
scanning directory with find) slower.
Mikulas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists