From: Alex Tomas Subject: Re: Design alternatives for fragments/file tail support in ext4 Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:02:53 +0300 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from [80.71.248.82] ([80.71.248.82]:60565 "EHLO gw.home.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162935AbWLBLCz (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Dec 2006 06:02:55 -0500 To: "Theodore Ts'o" In-Reply-To: (Theodore Ts'o's message of "Wed\, 11 Oct 2006 09\:55\:57 -0400") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org >>>>> Theodore Ts'o (TT) writes: TT> Storing the tail as an extended attribute TT> ========================================= TT> BSD FFS/UFS Fragments TT> ===================== what if we would apply BSD FFS/UFS Fragments design to inodes? something like basic inode size is still 128 bytes, but we could unite few contiguous inodes to a larger one and use that space to store extented attributes, including a tail ? I foresee couple issues: a) as we can't predict tail size, we'd need to be able to reallocate inode or do some sort of delayed inode allocation b) inode space is quite limited and this why we may exhaust it very quickly thanks, Alex