From owner-freebsd-fs Wed May 3 3:55: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from ewok.creative.net.au (ewok.creative.net.au [203.30.44.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C248F37BC5A for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 03:55:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@ewok.creative.net.au) Received: (qmail 77684 invoked by uid 1008); 3 May 2000 10:54:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 18:54:58 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A proposal : IFS Message-ID: <20000503185457.C53701@ewok.creative.net.au> References: <20000503040431.B53701@ewok.creative.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from Boris Popov on Wed, May 03, 2000 at 05:33:18PM +0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, May 03, 2000, Boris Popov wrote: > > numbered namespace to applications. It was originally written for > > squid and inn type applications, but a few people have suggested other > > applications such as CODA/AFS stores/caches, and temp filesystems. > > As I can see, the primary goal of IFS is to reduce cost of inode > lookup operation. And no doubt the best method is to expose inode numbers > directly to application. > > However it is not clear to me how applications will interact with > IFS and working example (patches for squid) would be very useful. Some > performance benchmarks are also appreciated. After my current patchset for squid I will work on a quick patchset for IFS. It shouldn't be that hard to implement. An application which keeps an internal database of objects->filenames would simply continue to do so, but the filename is simply the inode number. WHen creating a file, it opens 'newfile' for create/write, which creates a new file. It then stat()s the fd to get the inode number, and records that. In squid case, it eliminates the need for keeping a bitmap of used file entries, since the FS does this anyway. > > The only things this code is lacking is support for NFS cookies, and > > softupdates. I don't think either are very important right now, but > > I'm doubt that someone will need to export IFS via NFS. And > softupdates are not important too in this case. Thats what I thought. Adrian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message