From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA6D7FBA for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:15:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D491C304064 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id z2ZUmZOP0jp8yv8C (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:14:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:14:57 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] xfs: update inode allocation/free transaction reservations for finobt Message-ID: <20140220211457.GA8476@infradead.org> References: <1391536182-9048-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1391536182-9048-5-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <20140211064609.GE13647@dastard> <530393F8.4070106@redhat.com> <20140220020101.GL4916@dastard> <53064E26.2050607@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53064E26.2050607@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 01:49:10PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > Right, that can happen. But my question is this: how realistic is it > > that we have someone who has ENOSPC because of enough zero length > > files to trigger this? I've never seen an application or user try to > > store any significant number of zero length files, so I suspect this > > is a theoretical problem, not a practical one. > > > > Probably not very realistic. ;) The only thing I know that does rely on > some zero-length files is gluster distribution to represent "link files" > when one a file that hashes to one server ends up stored on another. > Even then, I don't see how we would ever have a situation where those > link files exist in such massive numbers and are removed in bulk. So > it's likely a pathological scenario. Zero data blocks are the only case for device nodes or fifos, very common for symlinks that can be stored inline, and not unusual for directories. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs