Subject: Re: `Large Inodes'
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
Date: 03/27/1999 15:00:05
Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > > Can you think of anywhere else we can store the data?
> > 5) in another file in the lower-level filesystem, possibly indexed by
> > inode number. This is akin to the LFS "ifile", as well as how AFS
> > stores some of its metadata.
> Hmmm. I like this. I found out from Jason why this idea was nixed (people
> who aren't here anymore thought it would be too slow). But we'll look at
If the payload is small enough, one idea that comes to mind is storing
the payload in the extra inode, similar to how short symlink names are
stored in the inode. A new file type could be created, and the changes
to dump/restore would be minimal (except for inode number re-matching
mentioned in another message). Inode number re-matching could me
made easier by adding a new call (or mode to open()) which allocates
consecutive inodes for you, and sets the inode-link field in the first
inode. If the inodes are consecutive, you also don't have to worry
about an extra seek/read to get the payload.
Just random ideas...