[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: FSFS packing functionally complete

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:38:12 +0100

Mark Mielke wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> The basic benefit is the elimination of what I term "the inode
>> problem" Any
>> file on disk is physically stored on a set of sectors, which are of
>> fixed size.
>> It depends on the file system, but most sectors can not store parts
>> of multiple
>> files. *Every* file requires at least one sector, so if a file only
>> contains 1
>> byte of actual data, it still reserves an entire sector on disk
>> (though again
>> this varies by file system). The size of a sector may range from 512
>> bytes to
>> 32 kB or more. IIRC, ext3 uses 4 kB sectors.
>>
>
> The inode problem is a different problem - each file system often has
> inode slots allocated up front, and if they become exhausted, no new
> files can be created, even if the disk isn't fully in use.

Nah, that's just stupid ancient file systems; hardly better than the
ancient 14-character filename length limit. XFS and a few others on
Unix, NTFS, HFS+ and the like don't have that problem.

You can bet that anyone who has a really big repository isn't hosting it
on ext2 these days; Or as least if they do, it's some sysadmins should
be shot.

Block size overhead and directory sizes are the real issue here.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-28 22:38:40 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.