On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:05:41AM -0700, Anand Avati wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:07:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > > We don't have reached a conclusion so far, do we? What about the > > > > > ioctl approach, but a bit differently? Would it work to specify the > > > > > allowed upper bits for ext4 (for example 16 additional bit) and the > > > > > remaining part for gluster? One of the mails had the calculation > > > > > formula: > > > > > > > > I did throw together an ioctl patch last week, but I think Anand has a > > new > > > > approach he's trying out which won't require ext4 code changes. I'll > > let > > > > him reply when he has a moment. :) > > > > > > Any update about whether Gluster can address this without needing the > > > ioctl patch? Or should we push the ioctl patch into ext4 for the next > > > merge window? > > > > They're testing a work-around: > > > > http://review.gluster.org/#change,4711 > > > > I'm not sure if they've decided that they're going to go with it, or > > not. > > > > Jeff reported that the approach did not work in his testing. I haven't had > a chance to look into the failure yet. Independent of the fix, it would > certainly be good have the ioctl() support The one advantage of your scheme is that it keeps more of the hash bits; the chance of 31-bit cookie collisions is much higher. > Samba could use it too, if it wanted. It'd be useful to understand their situation. --b.
