| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linda A. Walsh" <xfs@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Question about extended attributes... |
| From: | Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:13:57 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20080801123253.GG6201@disturbed> |
| References: | <48925495.7040804@tlinx.org> <4892B361.9030900@sgi.com> <20080801123253.GG6201@disturbed> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) |
Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:55:29PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote: >> Hi Linda, >> >> Linda A. Walsh wrote: >>> my man page says extended xfs attributes can have 256-byte names >>> with up to 64K of data. >>> >>> Is there a limit on the number of extended attributes max data size or >>> name size? >>> >>> I.e. could I have 1000 attributes with 64K of data each? >>> >> Yep. >> >>> Is there a strong reason why the file and data sizes were limited to >>> 256/64K? > > .... > >> I'm not sure why 64K was chosen for a value size limit. > > Because changes to EAs are journalled. Hence there must be a bound > size limit because log space is limited. > Yeah, good point. Which I guess also reflects how we consider extended attributes to be more for metadata. --Tim |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PING] do not test return value of xfs_bmap_*_count_leaves, Donald Douwsma |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [rfc][patch 2/3] xfs: remove vmap cache, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Question about extended attributes..., Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [GIT PULL] XFS update for 2.6.27, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |