Messages in this thread | | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: [IDEA] - run-length compaction of block numbers | Date | Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:38:06 +1100 |
| |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:20:51 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >I don't know how IBM did disk space management on the earlier systems >such as the 1401, 7040, and 7090 series, but I'd suspect it was a similar >extent-based method.
<old-fogey-mode>
Can't speak for the 1401 or 7xxx series. IBM 1620[*], which was obsolete back in 1977 when I programmed it, also used extent based disk directories. There were three directory areas on disk, one to map file names to extent indexes, one to map the used extents on the disk and one to map the free space extents.
[*] Binary coded decimal. Each digit had 4 numeric bits plus two flag bits. Two adjacent digits made a letter (and you thought that Unicode was bad!). Card punch or paper tape in/out. No printer, feed the cards through a separate machine for that. 20,000 digits of memory with a 2 Mb disk drive was a big machine.
Five digit addressing with one nice feature, if the flag bit was set on the rightmost digit of an address then it was automatically treated as an indirect address and the real address was fetched from the area referenced by this address, the real address could also be flagged as indirect and the process would continue. The IBM manual claimed that indirect addresses required no extra time (nothing changes about computer claims :). The student's idea of fun was to load all of memory with indirect addresses, each pointing to the next with loop around. Refer to the first and watch the big panel lights slowly cycle through all of memory doing nothing useful.
</old-fogey-mode>
- 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/
| |