| To: | Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:00:29 +1200 |
| Cc: | rsharpe@xxxxxxxxxx, Xuan Baldauf <xuan--reiserfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-list@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3B5169E5.827BFED@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.BSI.4.10.10107141752080.18419-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B507259.4436853E@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20010715052116.E7056@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B50D058.3090008@xxxxxxxxxx> <3B50CFF6.4BE90AB0@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20010715155758.G7624@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B5169E5.827BFED@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.18i |
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:01:09PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
Making the server stateless is wrong
why?
making the readdir a multioperation act is wrong
why? i have 3M directories... ar you saying clients should read the
whole things at once?
but making not letting the FS use filename as a cookie and making
it use 64 bit byte offsets is the most wrong thing of all.
here i agree, smarter clients could/should hang onto the filename and
revalidate if needed --- the only nasty things is REALLY deep
directory trees
--cw
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Lost data on XFS, David Lukaštík |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: mounting XFS fails, Seth Mos |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks, Hans Reiser |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks, Russell Coker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |