From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:26:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20070430172624.GB19149@thunk.org> References: <20070428220522.GN11166@waste.org> <20070429232349.GA19937@thunk.org> <20070430014042.GL11115@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Mackall Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:48441 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031154AbXD3R0e (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:26:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070430014042.GL11115@waste.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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