From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:37:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5B2bqX3013882 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:37:53 -0700 Received: from smtp.sauce.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5EB92C71EF7 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.sauce.co.nz (smtp.sauce.co.nz [210.48.49.72]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ihnpGwtIc2SZhG8E for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <484F3CDF.10001@sauce.co.nz> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:47:59 +1200 From: Richard Scobie MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Filestreams (and 64bit inodes) References: <484B15A3.4030505@sauce.co.nz> <484CA425.3080606@sandeen.net> <484DDDB3.70000@sgi.com> <484F0998.90306@sauce.co.nz> <484F2CD7.9070506@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <484F2CD7.9070506@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Timothy Shimmin Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Timothy, Timothy Shimmin wrote: > Ah, the 32 bit inode versus 64 bit inode question :) > I don't have any definitive answers and I'm sure there will be people > on the list with their opinions and experiences. > So just some thoughts... On balance, I'm thinking the best compromise might be to stay 32 bit and bump the inode size to 2048 bytes. Regards, Richard