On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> - Space savings. Certainly your scheme may be smaller, but the XML >> tag overhead may eat into the savings. You should do some estimates >> to show the community how much smaller the tree will be from this >> proposal. > > Sorry but you lost me on any point you might have brought across since > after this I feel like you were trying to put words in my mouth.
Sorry for that, I never meant to imply that you said space savings. That being said I still don't see the usefulness here. You seem to think that using the existing APIs for this data is wrong, and I think the opposite, so I guess we will agree to disagree on this matter. > > Beside, if you really want to go down that road you should be counting > that beside ReiserFS with tail, I don't remember any other Linux FS that > has block smaller than 512bytes, which means that each file in metadata > cache is taking up much more than just its size in characters. > > All your math is thus wrong. As was pointed out on IRC, UTF8 characters are not a fixed size, making my math even more wrong ;) > > -- > Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò > http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ >
