Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:40:42PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> chunkfs. The other is reverse maps (aka back pointers) for blocks ->
> inodes and inodes -> directories that obviate the need to have large
> amounts of memory to check for collisions.

Yes, I missed the fact that you had back pointers for blocks as well
as inodes.  So the block table in the tile header gets used for
determing if a block is free, much like is done with FAT, right?  

That's a clever system; I like it.  It does mean that there is a lot
more metadata updates, but since you're not journaling, that should
counter that effect to some extent.

IMHO, it's definitely worth a try to see how well it works!

						- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux