![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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@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: 2006-11-04 19:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||