Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:45:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m5S0jc0F009050 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:45:40 -0700 Received: from [134.15.251.1] (melb-sw-corp-251-1.corp.sgi.com [134.15.251.1]) by larry.melbourne.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id KAA08898; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:46:32 +1000 Message-ID: <486589E7.9010705@sgi.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:46:31 +1000 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com Organization: SGI Engineering User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option References: <20080627153928.GA31384@lst.de> <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> In-Reply-To: <20080628000914.GE29319@disturbed> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/6021/Wed Feb 27 15:55:48 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 16636 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: markgw@sgi.com Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs 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. Cheers -- Mark Goodwin markgw@sgi.com Engineering Manager for XFS and PCP Phone: +61-3-99631937 SGI Australian Software Group Cell: +61-4-18969583 -------------------------------------------------------------