Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:03:09AM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:08:30 +0000
> David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> 
> > I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
> > (physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
> > and that reminded me: for various reasons, many people who are doing
> > serious data collection or simulation tend to encode vast amounts of
> > metadata in the names of their data files. Arguably this is a bad way
> > of doing things, but there are reasons for it and not so many clear
> > alternatives... anyway, 256 character filenames often aren't enough in
> > that context.
> 
> It's only my opinion, but they really should be using multiple files or
> a database for the metadata with as necessary a "link" to an actual
> file for data.

Or use '/' to separate the fields in their long filename :-)
(But then they'll hit the 32k/64k limit on subdirectories ...)

Thinks...   MD5 hash the user-specified filename and use that for
the 'real' name. Add some special fudgery so that readdir() works.
Then use some kind of overlay mount.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost