On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:39:24 -0600, Stephen Lord wrote:
>>Apropos -- is it possible to reduce the XFS footprint (as a module) by
>>in some magic compiler options? I already compile it without debugging
>>still it's about 500K in size. Of course I do realize XFS is an extremely
>>powerful (and therefore non-trivial) filesystem but if I remember correctly
>>reiser is only 200K in size.
>If you turn off quotas, posix acls, dmapi and realtime (you probably
>already did these)
I need quotas and ACLs, so I cannot turn'em off. I HAVE turned off DMAPI and
realtime support, tho.
>then it gets a bit smaller. There are definitely other code paths you
>cannot get to in there
>which we could cut out - just a matter of finding them.
That reminds me of another question I'm asking myself since a while: It seems
as if you're developing XFS for Linux from scratch instead of "just" porting
it from SGI. Is that right? Or why do you seem to change even fundamental code
pieces? Or does porting to Linux mean you have to rewrite it because it's so
different from IRIX?
>You could try editing xfs_types.h and changing
>#define XFS_BIG_FILES 1
>#define XFS_BIG_FILESYSTEMS 1
>#define XFS_BIG_FILES 0
>#define XFS_BIG_FILESYSTEMS 0
I probably can't do that since as you know I use hardware RAIDs so I probably
need "big" filesystems, and I also need "big" files.
> From what I hear, gcc is not known for optimizing code for size.
Hehehe, this is what I also hear sometimes. ;-)
Thanks, and keep up the good work!!
Verkaufe Original-BMW-Raeder: L I N U X .~.
http://adsl-bergs.rz.rwth-aachen.de/~rabe The Choice /V\
of a GNU /( )\