Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:20:52 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Ralf Folkerts <ralf.folkerts@gmx.de>, "Marat N.Afanasyev" <amarat@ksu.ru>, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bug in ufs? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0907070020090.12926@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20090706200110.GX2884@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4A50E947.9020608@ksu.ru> <4A523518.7050008@gmx.de> <4A523849.1070001@ksu.ru> <20090706193653.GU2884@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0907062351100.12926@woozle.rinet.ru> <20090706200110.GX2884@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Kostik Belousov wrote: KB> > KB> My guess that it is due to fragmentation. KB> > KB> As an experiment, try to create 1-byte file. Does it work on the filesystem KB> > KB> in described state ? KB> > KB> > Doesn't UFS store one-byte (or several-bytes, like PID file) file entirely in KB> > the inode, not consuming any data blocks? KB> KB> No, 1-byte file is stored in fragment. Long write tries to allocate whole KB> block. This is why I wrote about fragmentation. KB> KB> Answering your question, it is short symlinks that are stored in inode KB> in the data block pointers. Ah yes, I somehow mixed these two cases, thank you for clarification. -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0907070020090.12926>