|To:||Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: Filestreams (and 64bit inodes)|
|From:||Richard Scobie <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:47:59 +1200|
|References:||<484B15A3.4030505@xxxxxxxxxxx> <484CA425.3080606@xxxxxxxxxxx> <484DDDB3.70000@xxxxxxx> <484F0998.90306@xxxxxxxxxxx> <484F2CD7.9070506@xxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040805 Netscape/7.2|
Hi Timothy, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
Ah, the 32 bit inode versus 64 bit inode question :) I don't have any definitive answers and I'm sure there will be people on the list with their opinions and experiences. So just some thoughts...
On balance, I'm thinking the best compromise might be to stay 32 bit and bump the inode size to 2048 bytes.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Filestreams (and 64bit inodes), Timothy Shimmin|
|Next by Date:||Re: Filestreams (and 64bit inodes), Eric Sandeen|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Filestreams (and 64bit inodes), Timothy Shimmin|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Filestreams (and 64bit inodes), Eric Sandeen|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|