Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:32:06 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Space-saving of UFS1 Message-ID: <448A2116.3020504@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060610004447.A26068@fledge.watson.org> References: <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200606091313.04913.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <4489ADC9.3090809@samsco.org> <200606091330.10007.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <4489BD63.7060309@samsco.org> <20060610004447.A26068@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote: > >> The inode size was extended from 128 bytes to 256 bytes to allow for >> 64-bit block pointers. This includes 12 direct block pointers and one >> pointer for each of the single, double, and triple indirect blocks. >> That didn't fill left some extra space in the 256 bytes, so ACL size >> info and block pointers were put in there. However, ACLs are just a >> side effect of the larger size, not the sole reason. And, ACLs are >> not actually stored in the inode, only block pointers to them are. > > > While the technical statements above are correct, actually, the extended > attribute storage was the primary motivation for getting UFS2 > development kicked off. Since it required rolling the file system > layout, we did 64-bit support at the same time, dropped back in the > birth time, etc. > > Robert N M Watson Ah, sorry, I had it backwards. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?448A2116.3020504>