From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Reinoud Zandijk Subject: Re: How does NILFS2 handle directory management Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:27:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20090914102731.GA154@aardappel.13thmonkey.org> References: <20090910192619.GA1263@heethoofdje.13thmonkey.org> <20090911.102118.69189169.ryusuke@osrg.net> <20090911052213.GA24899@aardappel.13thmonkey.org> <20090911.154452.43227079.ryusuke@osrg.net> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090911.154452.43227079.ryusuke-sG5X7nlA6pw@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: reinoud-S783fYmB3Ccdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, users-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:44:52PM +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > You mean hashing (on-memory) by file names? > Well, I agree. Such optimization would improve directory operations of > the current code without disk format change. Well, the strength is that you don't remember the directory contents, only the hashes, diroffset and name length; this means nearly no memory use. Its also authorative: not found in the hash means its not in the dir. > I think it should be considered along with ext3 approach. What is is the ext3 approach? What is different compared to ext2? And is it really such a big improvement? Will it complicate directory reading/writing more? With regards, Reinoud Zandijk