From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [213.170.72.194] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DfHvi-0000TT-0m for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:46:15 -0400 Message-ID: <42A45382.5080301@yandex.ru> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:45:38 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= References: <1118062747.5629.9.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> <20050606131534.GC31739@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> In-Reply-To: <20050606131534.GC31739@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: JFFS3 superblock search List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , J=F6rn Engel wrote: > You already know that I'm skeptical about the B+ tree. But I'm even > more skeptical about a 4-level tree. That could turn into a > bottleneck rather quickly. >=20 Joern, providing the key is 16 bytes and the pointer is 8 bytes, the 4-level=20 B-tree is enough for (4096/24)^4 =3D 170^4 ~1E8. If this isn't enough we = may use more levels as well. --=20 Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.