[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:50:56PM +0000, David Laight 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 ...)
This actually doesn't work that well if you ever use mv or cp on some
or all of the data files.
> 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.
Sounds like Windows long filenames...
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |