On Saturday, May 05, 2001 03:49:20 PM +0200 Jamie Lokier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>> > Is there a reason that
>> > reiserfs chose to have "large number of directories" represented by "1"
>> > and not "LINK_MAX+1"?
>>
>> find and a few others consider a link count of 1
Chris Mason wrote:
> > Is there a reason that
> > reiserfs chose to have "large number of directories" represented by "1"
> > and not "LINK_MAX+1"?
>
> find and a few others consider a link count of 1 to mean there is no link
> count tracking being done.
Indeed, and thank you for getting this
Chris Mason wrote:
Is there a reason that
reiserfs chose to have large number of directories represented by 1
and not LINK_MAX+1?
find and a few others consider a link count of 1 to mean there is no link
count tracking being done.
Indeed, and thank you for getting this right!
Btw, is
On Saturday, May 05, 2001 03:49:20 PM +0200 Jamie Lokier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
Is there a reason that
reiserfs chose to have large number of directories represented by 1
and not LINK_MAX+1?
find and a few others consider a link count of 1 to mean there is no
On Friday, May 04, 2001 01:15:22 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris writes:
>> On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory i_nlink count.
>> > If you exceed 64536
Chris writes:
> On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory i_nlink count.
> > If you exceed 64536 links in a directory, it reverts to "1" and no longer
> > tracks the link count.
>
> Correct.
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin writes:
>> Not correct, there can't be more than 2^15 *directories* in a single
>> directory. I belive this is an ext2 limitation.
>
>
> I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. Peter Anvin writes:
Not correct, there can't be more than 2^15 *directories* in a single
directory. I belive this is an ext2 limitation.
I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory
Chris writes:
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory i_nlink count.
If you exceed 64536 links in a directory, it reverts to 1 and no longer
tracks the link count.
Correct. The link
On Friday, May 04, 2001 01:15:22 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris writes:
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory i_nlink count.
If you exceed 64536 links in a
Ingo Oeser wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:03:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your
> > > performance would have been abominable too. cyrus should be
> > > using heirarchies of directories for very large amounts of
> > > stuff.
>
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
> > At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
> > more files in a directory.
> >
> > Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
>
> Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:03:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your
> > performance would have been abominable too. cyrus should be
> > using heirarchies of directories for very large amounts of
> > stuff.
Right.
> But also showing, once
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:03:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your
performance would have been abominable too. cyrus should be
using heirarchies of directories for very large amounts of
stuff.
Right.
But also showing, once again, that
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
more files in a directory.
Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your performance would
Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:03:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your
performance would have been abominable too. cyrus should be
using heirarchies of directories for very large amounts of
stuff.
Right.
But
H. Peter Anvin writes:
> Not correct, there can't be more than 2^15 *directories* in a single
> directory. I belive this is an ext2 limitation.
This is imposed by a number of issues:
- EXT2_LINK_MAX=32000 is checked for new subdirectories
- ext2 bg_used_dirs_count is a __u16
- inode->i_nlink
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
> > At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
> > more files in a directory.
> >
> > Is this a vfs-Issue or an
> cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
> At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
> more files in a directory.
>
> Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your performance would have
been abominable too. cyrus should
Followup to: <27280.988750082@hades>
By author:Andreas Rogge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> While trying to create 100.000 (in words: one hundred thousand) Mailboxes
> with
> cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
> At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling
While trying to create 100.000 (in words: one hundred thousand) Mailboxes
with
cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
more files in a directory.
Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
Andreas Rogge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
While trying to create 100.000 (in words: one hundred thousand) Mailboxes
with
cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
more files in a directory.
Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
Andreas Rogge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Available
Followup to: 27280.988750082@hades
By author:Andreas Rogge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
While trying to create 100.000 (in words: one hundred thousand) Mailboxes
with
cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that
cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
more files in a directory.
Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your performance would have
been abominable too. cyrus should be
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
cyrus-imapd i ran into problems.
At about 2^15 files the filesystem gave up, telling me that there cannot be
more files in a directory.
Is this a vfs-Issue or an ext2-issue?
Bit
H. Peter Anvin writes:
Not correct, there can't be more than 2^15 *directories* in a single
directory. I belive this is an ext2 limitation.
This is imposed by a number of issues:
- EXT2_LINK_MAX=32000 is checked for new subdirectories
- ext2 bg_used_dirs_count is a __u16
- inode-i_nlink
26 matches
Mail list logo
