Re: rfc: kill ino64 mount option

[Christoph Litauer <litauer@uni-koblenz.de>]

Mark Goodwin schrieb:
> 
> 
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:39:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> Does anyone have objections to kill the ino64 mount option?  It's purely
>>> a debug tool to force inode numbers outside of the range representable
>>> in 32bits and is quite invasive for something that could easily be
>>> debugged by just having a large enough filesystem..
>>
>> It's the "large enough fs" that is the problem. XFSQA uses
>> small partitions for the most part, and this allows testing
>> of 64 bit inode numbers with a standard qa config.
>>
>> That being said, I don't really if it goes or stays...
> 
> Although ino64 has interoperability issues with 32bit apps, it does
> have significant performance advantages over inode32 for some
> storage topologies and workloads, i.e. it's generally desirable to
> keep inodes near their data, but with large configs inode32 can't
> always oblige. ino64 is not just a debug tool.
> 
> We have a design proposal known as "inode32+" that essentially removes
> the direct mapping between inode number and disk offset. This will
> provide all the layout and performance benefits of ino64 without the
> interop issues.  Until inode32+ is available, we need to keep ino64.

Hi,

as I have massive performance problems using xfs with millions of 
inodes, I am very interested in this "incode32+". My server is a 32 bit 
machine, so I am not able to use inode64.
Is it available?

-- 
Regards
Christoph
________________________________________________________________________
Christoph Litauer                  litauer@uni-koblenz.de
Uni Koblenz, Computing Center,     http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~litauer
Postfach 201602, 56016 Koblenz     Fon: +49 261 287-1311, Fax: -100 1311
PGP-Fingerprint: F39C E314 2650 650D 8092 9514 3A56 FBD8 79E3 27B2