From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <1149816055.4066.60.camel@dyn9047017069.beaverton.ibm.com> <4488E1A4.20305@garzik.org> <20060609083523.GQ5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <44898EE3.6080903@garzik.org> <448992EB.5070405@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , ext2-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:23006 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030297AbWFIQzD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:55:03 -0400 To: Alex Tomas In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Just as an example: ext3 _sucks_ in many ways. It has huge inodes that > take up way too much space in memory. Btw, I'm not kidding you on this one. THE NUMBER ONE MEMORY USAGE ON A LOT OF LOADS IS EXT3 INODES IN MEMORY! And you know what? 2TB files are totally uninteresting to 99.9999% of all people. Most people find it _much_ more interesting to have hundreds of thousands of _smaller_ files instead. So do this: cat /proc/slabinfo | grep ext3 and be absolutely disgusted and horrified by the size of those inodes already, and ask yourself whether extending the block size to 48 bits will help or further hurt one of the biggest problems of ext3 right now? (And yes, I realize that block numbers are just a small part of it. The "vfs_inode" is also a real problem - it's got _way_ too many large list-heads that explode on a 64-bit kernel, for example. Oh, well. My point is that things like this can make a very real issue _worse_ for all the people who don't care one whit about it) Linus