From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 6 19:55:13 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5121916A41C; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:55:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7E843D49; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:55:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j56JsvcS019388; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200506061955.j56JsvcS019388@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:54:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis To: scottl@samsco.org In-Reply-To: <42A453B5.3020006@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org, drosih@rpi.edu, current@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:55:13 -0000 On 6 Jun, Scott Long wrote: > Garance A Drosihn wrote: >> At 1:05 AM -0400 6/6/05, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Scott Long wrote: >>> >>>> It's a huge win for CPU overhead in the filesystem, especially >>>> when we start talking about increasing the size of m_links >>>> field and possibly going 64-bit inode numbers. >>> >>> >>> Talking about going to 64-bit inode numbers, how would we deal >>> with the change in stat(2)? >> >> >> By making some sort of incompatible change to stat(2). This has >> been discussed from time-to-time. It's another change that I >> would have liked to have seen (at least for the stat routines) >> in 6.0, but right now I suspect it will not happen until 7.0. >> > > We can't go making incremental incompatibilities to the filesystem > without a good deal of planning. This is the type of thing that > would go into a 'UFS3'. I have some long-term plans here, but I > need to get the initial proof-of-concept journalling working before > I start to seriously consider what else would be in UFS3. cough ... larger cylinder groups ... cough