Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:31:49 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 limits Message-ID: <20081109192810.S85881@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109152835.N49145@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> the limit is 32765, just because link count is 2 bytes wide and
>> each subdir adds two to base directory. you have to change to 2
>> level hierarchy.
>
> Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
> If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32
> bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or
> policy reasons, and if so what are they?
>
>
looking at /usr/include/ufs/ufs/dinode.h - i see
int64_t di_spare[3];
and i have really no idea why time uses as much as 8+4 bytes like that:
ufs_time_t di_mtime; /* 40: Last modified time. */
int32_t di_mtimensec; /* 64: Last modified time. */
i think it is not a problem to make link count 32-bit, and - why "spare"
space are not just used for more direct/indirect blocks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081109192810.S85881>