lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: what is our answer to ZFS?
    From
    On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:50:47AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
    > I will note though that there are people who are asking for 64-bit
    > inode numbers on 32-bit platforms, since 2**32 inodes are not enough
    > for certain distributed/clustered filesystems. And this is something
    > we don't yet support today, and probably will need to think about much
    > sooner than 128-bit filesystems....

    As far as the kernel is concerned this hasn't been a problem in a while
    (2.4.early). The iget4 operation that was introduced by reiserfs (now
    iget5) pretty much makes it possible for a filesystem to use anything to
    identify it's inodes. The 32-bit inode numbers are simply used as a hash
    index.

    The only thing that tends to break are userspace archiving tools like
    tar, which assume that 2 objects with the same 32-bit st_ino value are
    identical. I think that by now several actually double check that the
    inode linkcount is larger than 1.

    Jan
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-22 16:30    [W:0.021 / U:61.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site