Mark Goodwin schrieb:
Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:39:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Does anyone have objections to kill the ino64 mount option? It's purely
a debug tool to force inode numbers outside of the range representable
in 32bits and is quite invasive for something that could easily be
debugged by just having a large enough filesystem..
It's the "large enough fs" that is the problem. XFSQA uses
small partitions for the most part, and this allows testing
of 64 bit inode numbers with a standard qa config.
That being said, I don't really if it goes or stays...
Although ino64 has interoperability issues with 32bit apps, it does
have significant performance advantages over inode32 for some
storage topologies and workloads, i.e. it's generally desirable to
keep inodes near their data, but with large configs inode32 can't
always oblige. ino64 is not just a debug tool.
We have a design proposal known as "inode32+" that essentially removes
the direct mapping between inode number and disk offset. This will
provide all the layout and performance benefits of ino64 without the
interop issues. Until inode32+ is available, we need to keep ino64.
as I have massive performance problems using xfs with millions of
inodes, I am very interested in this "incode32+". My server is a 32 bit
machine, so I am not able to use inode64.
Is it available?
Christoph Litauer litauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Uni Koblenz, Computing Center, http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~litauer
Postfach 201602, 56016 Koblenz Fon: +49 261 287-1311, Fax: -100 1311
PGP-Fingerprint: F39C E314 2650 650D 8092 9514 3A56 FBD8 79E3 27B2