Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:25:31 -0500 | Subject | Re: what is our answer to ZFS? | From | Jan Harkes <> |
| |
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/
| |