Re: Maximum number of subdirectories
Hello On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:25 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > Hello, > > Am a newbie to ReisferFS / Reiser4. > > I've been searching the archives and Google for a definite answer as > to what the maximum number of subdirectories under a directory is. A > Dec, 2003 article ( http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=510028 ) > says it's 64,536. Is this still true ? > no, that was for old format of reiserfs. > If not, then what is the current limit for both ReiserFS and Reiser4 ? current limit for both is 2^32. > > Regards, > Danny > >
RE: Maximum number of subdirectories
Hi Vladimir, By current limit, are you pertaining to ReiserFS (v3.x) or Reiser4 ? Regards, Danny -Original Message- From: Vladimir V. Saveliev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:46 PM To: Sinang, Danny Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: Maximum number of subdirectories Hello On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:25 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > Hello, > > Am a newbie to ReisferFS / Reiser4. > > I've been searching the archives and Google for a definite answer as > to what the maximum number of subdirectories under a directory is. A > Dec, 2003 article ( http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=510028 ) > says it's 64,536. Is this still true ? > no, that was for old format of reiserfs. > If not, then what is the current limit for both ReiserFS and Reiser4 ? current limit for both is 2^32. > > Regards, > Danny > >
RE: Maximum number of subdirectories
Hi All, It is pertaining to Reiser4 On Reiser4 the limit is 2^32 where as on ReiserFS (v3.x) the limit is 64,536 ( not sure) Regards, Masthan -Original Message- From: Sinang, Danny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:37 PM To: Vladimir V. Saveliev Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: RE: Maximum number of subdirectories Hi Vladimir, By current limit, are you pertaining to ReiserFS (v3.x) or Reiser4 ? Regards, Danny -Original Message- From: Vladimir V. Saveliev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:46 PM To: Sinang, Danny Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: Maximum number of subdirectories Hello On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:25 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > Hello, > > Am a newbie to ReisferFS / Reiser4. > > I've been searching the archives and Google for a definite answer as > to what the maximum number of subdirectories under a directory is. A > Dec, 2003 article ( http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=510028 ) > says it's 64,536. Is this still true ? > no, that was for old format of reiserfs. > If not, then what is the current limit for both ReiserFS and Reiser4 ? current limit for both is 2^32. > > Regards, > Danny > >
RE: Maximum number of subdirectories
Hello On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:07 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > By current limit, are you pertaining to ReiserFS (v3.x) or Reiser4 ? > for both. > Regards, > Danny > > -Original Message- > From: Vladimir V. Saveliev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:46 PM > To: Sinang, Danny > Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com > Subject: Re: Maximum number of subdirectories > > Hello > > On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:25 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Am a newbie to ReisferFS / Reiser4. > > > > I've been searching the archives and Google for a definite answer as > > to what the maximum number of subdirectories under a directory is. A > > Dec, 2003 article ( http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=510028 ) > > says it's 64,536. Is this still true ? > > > no, that was for old format of reiserfs. > > > If not, then what is the current limit for both ReiserFS and Reiser4 ? > > current limit for both is 2^32. > > > > > Regards, > > Danny > > > > > >
Re: Maximum number of subdirectories
Hello On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 02:09 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: > > >Hello > > > >On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:25 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > > > > > >>Hello, > >> > >>Am a newbie to ReisferFS / Reiser4. > >> > >>I've been searching the archives and Google for a definite answer as > >>to what the maximum number of subdirectories under a directory is. A > >>Dec, 2003 article ( http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=510028 ) > >>says it's 64,536. Is this still true ? > >> > >> > >> > >no, that was for old format of reiserfs. > > > > > > > >>If not, then what is the current limit for both ReiserFS and Reiser4 ? > >> > >> > > > >current limit for both is 2^32. > > > > > and that limit is not of our making, but is rather due to layers above us. > both in-core inode of linux and reiser4 default disk format store number of file links in 32 bits. > > > > > >> > >>Regards, > >>Danny > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Maximum number of subdirectories
hello, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: Hello On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:07 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: Hi Vladimir, By current limit, are you pertaining to ReiserFS (v3.x) or Reiser4 ? for both. I guess you mean reiserfs 3.6 and reiser4, or does it also apply to reiserfs 3.5? -- /\ | Michael Weissenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | http://www.dermichi.com/ | | Email users are divided into two classes;| | 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking| | 2) Those who wish they did | \/
Re: Maximum number of subdirectories
Hello On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:32 +0200, Michael Weissenbacher wrote: > hello, > Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote: > > Hello > > > > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:07 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > >> Hi Vladimir, > >> > >> By current limit, are you pertaining to ReiserFS (v3.x) or Reiser4 ? > >> > > > > for both. > I guess you mean reiserfs 3.6 and reiser4, or does it also apply to > reiserfs 3.5? > this also applies to 3.5. But for 3.5 number of directory links does not get reported correctly: 1 is reported for directories which have more than 64535 subdirectories.
Reiser4 release date and status
Hello, I noticed the "REISER4 RELEASED!" statement in http://www.namesys.com/download.html and wonder when it did get released and what its status now. The web page seems to have last been updated August 5, 2004 and the warning still says "but until a program has seen a few million real users you should not use it for a mission critical server." Does this warning still hold ? Or has Reisfer4 now passed the million-user test ? Regards, Danny
Re: Reiser4 release date and status
Hello On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 21:35 +0800, Sinang, Danny wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed the "REISER4 RELEASED!" statement in > http://www.namesys.com/download.html and wonder when it did get > released and what its status now. > > The web page seems to have last been updated August 5, 2004 and the > warning still says "but until a program has seen a few million real > users you should not use it for a mission critical server." > > Does this warning still hold ? > yes, reiser4 is not yet ready for mission critical servers > Or has Reisfer4 now passed the million-user test ? > It is hard to say. I think it has not. > Regards, > Danny > >
2.6.16 + reiser4 -2 patch = gcc error
I'm using 2.6.16 and the patch from ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4-for-2.6/2.6.16/reiser4-for-2.6.16-2.patch.gz CC [M] fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.o fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.c: In function lseek_common_dir': fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.c:485: warning: implicit declaration of function utex_lock' fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.c:485: error: structure has no member named _mutex' fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.c:507: warning: implicit declaration of function utex_unlock' fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.c:507: error: structure has no member named _mutex' make[2]: *** [fs/reiser4/plugin/file_ops_readdir.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [fs/reiser4] Error 2 make: *** [fs] Error 2 Sorry if this has been posted already. I searched, but didn't find it. -- Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
Re: Reiser4 release date and status
Hello, > I noticed the "REISER4 RELEASED!" statement in > http://www.namesys.com/download.html and wonder when it did get released > and what its status now. it is released but from my experience the latest changes that were necessary to prepare for inclusion into the vanilla kernel have destabilized the code somewhat. > The web page seems to have last been updated August 5, 2004 and the > warning still says "but until a program has seen a few million real > users you should not use it for a mission critical server." > Does this warning still hold ? i'd say this warning still holds for mission-critical servers. it's ok for desktop use and for testing and development purposes. i may add that the warning is true for about any software that is released, for example you need not be the first one to adapt apache 2.2 on a mission-critical server either. kind regards, michael
