lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: what is our answer to ZFS?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:25:20PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > The standards are insufficient however. For example dealing with named
> > > streams or extended attributes if exposed as "normal files" would
> > > naturally have the same st_ino (given they are the same inode as the
> > > normal file data) and st_dev fields.
> >
> > Um, but that's why even Solaris's openat(2) proposal doesn't expose
> > streams or extended attributes as "normal files". The answer is that
> > you can't just expose named streams or extended attributes as "normal
> > files" without screwing yourself.
>
> Reiser4 does I believe...

Reiser4 violates POSIX. News at 11....

> I was not talking about Solaris/UFS. NTFS has named streams and extended
> attributes and both are stored as separate attribute records inside the
> same inode as the data attribute. (A bit simplified as multiple inodes
> can be in use for one "file" when an inode's attributes become large than
> an inode - in that case attributes are either moved whole to a new inode
> and/or are chopped up in bits and each bit goes to a different inode.)

NTFS violates POSIX. News at 11....

- Ted
-
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 20:55    [W:0.102 / U:28.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site