[lkml]   [1996]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectFile system daemon/thread
    Kai Henningsen writes:
    > It might even be a good idea to only add the hash structures once the
    > directories grow over a certain size. Note I have that all the
    > *information* in one sequential file, just like current Unix directories.
    > If it's done that way, I'd say that the directory should be larger than,
    > say, two buckets before we add hashing - maybe even more. If we can't
    > reduce disk accesses, there's not much point in the overhead, is there?

    How about: a kernel thread/kerneld-like daemon is informed of all
    directory changes. It could change directory structure from list
    to hash/B+-tree or whatever as it grows.

    What I'd also like to see is low priority kernel thread/kerneld-like
    defragmenter. Current stuff is ugly, you duplicate many kernel
    functions and the FS has to be offline, when all you need is ability
    to lock a directory/file/block, move it, update references and unlock.

    Also, in-kernel fsck could first lock the whole FS and then gradually
    release locking on the parts it has verified. On the other hand,
    the current userland version works nicely, thank you. But for
    some really massive and time-critical systems?


    G? d- s++:- a- C++ ULS++++$ P++$ L++>+++ E W+ N !o K? !w !O !M !V PS+
    PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5? X !R tv@ b++ DI++ D+ G+ e+++ h--->h---- r+++ y?

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.018 / U:8.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site