Subject: Re: fsync performance hit on 1.6.1
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 07/09/2003 16:40:54
[ On Wednesday, July 9, 2003 at 16:05:32 (-0400), der Mouse wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: fsync performance hit on 1.6.1
> >> Maybe, maybe not, but your example is irrelevant - inumbers are
> >> _not_ the API-visible namespace for filesystems!
> > Anyone who ignores the fact that unix filesystems are inherently flat
> > namespaces at their lowest level does so at his or her own peril! ;-)
> > Directories are just files full of names and pointers to the true
> > numerical namespace of the filesystem.
> You are still insisting on confusing the implementation namespace
> (inumbers) with the API namespace (pathnames).
> Given how intelligent you have proven yourself ot be in other areas, I
> can only conclude you are being deliberately stubborn in this
> misunderstanding, and I see no need to even attempt to discuss matters
> with someone acting that way.
I'm only trying to point out to you that complaining that flat
namespaces are inherently broken is like complaining that the sky is
blue on a clear and sunny day.
I'm only blurring the boundary between kernel and user-land because when
you get down to these kinds of things the boundary _should_ be blurry.
Just as the unix filesystem has namei(), SysV IPC has ftok().
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>