From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k94J80aG004989 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:08:01 -0700 Received: from mx1.suse.de (ns.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C017546CC57 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Convert XFS inode hashes to radix trees References: <20061003060610.GV3024@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061003212335.GA13120@tuatara.stupidest.org> <20061003222256.GW4695059__33273.3314754025$1159914338$gmane$org@melbourne.sgi.com> From: Andi Kleen Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:59:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20061003222256.GW4695059__33273.3314754025$1159914338$gmane$org@melbourne.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs-dev@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com, dhowells@redhat.com, LKML David Chinner writes: > > And yes, 64 bit systems are cheap, cheap, cheap so IMO this > functionality is really irrelevant moving forward. If it had come > along a couple of years ago then it would be different, but I think > mainstream technology is finally catching up with XFS so it's not a > critical issue anymore... ;) One issue is that people often still run a lot of 32bit userland even with 64bit kernels. The compat layer will just truncate the inodes I think. But so far I haven't heard of anybody complaining on x86-64. -Andi