From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 27 16:08:32 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 366C216A4CE; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:08:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (f170.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6FB9B43D3F; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:08:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2RG8QNq022799;
	Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:08:26 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:01:11 +0200."
             <868y49w5lk.fsf@xps.des.no> 
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:08:26 +0200
Message-ID: <22798.1111939706@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
cc: David Schultz <das@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: UFS Subdirectory limit. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:08:32 -0000

In message <868y49w5lk.fsf@xps.des.no>, =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= 
writes:
>Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes:
>>                            It would be much more worthwhile to introduce
>> a UFS3 that uses a more efficient directory layout (B-tree?) to provide
>> real value to increasing the nlink limitation.
>
>It would be even more worthwile to simply adopt an existing well-
>designed and well-tested file system, such as IBM JFS.

Even better:  Do both and then on top of it encourage further
research into filesystems which take modern usage of computing
systems into account :-)

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.