From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Bacik Subject: Re: Hardlinks-per-directory limit? Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:50:52 -0400 Message-ID: <20100729135046.GA2452@localhost.localdomain> References: <7836277d97c74d44d8f2132e87db0b67.squirrel@webmail.jots.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Ken D'Ambrosio" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7836277d97c74d44d8f2132e87db0b67.squirrel@webmail.jots.org> List-ID: On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:35:59AM -0400, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote: > Hello, all. I'm thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and -- based > on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks > (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23) > -- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall that > there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and BackupPC > *loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me what the issue > was, or reassure me that it's been rectified? > It's because we pack inode ref's into the same item, so once the item fills up we can't add anymore refs. It's still a problem, not sure if/when its getting fixed. Thanks, Josef