Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

oops :) I don't follow that well ... 

size of in-core inodes is a different problem.

thanks, Alex

>>>>> Linus Torvalds (LT) writes:

 LT> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 >> 
 >> Just as an example: ext3 _sucks_ in many ways. It has huge inodes that 
 >> take up way too much space in memory.

 LT> Btw, I'm not kidding you on this one.

 LT> THE NUMBER ONE MEMORY USAGE ON A LOT OF LOADS IS EXT3 INODES IN MEMORY!

 LT> And you know what? 2TB files are totally uninteresting to 99.9999% of all 
 LT> people. Most people find it _much_ more interesting to have hundreds of 
 LT> thousands of _smaller_ files instead.

 LT> So do this:

 LT> 	cat /proc/slabinfo | grep ext3

 LT> and be absolutely disgusted and horrified by the size of those inodes 
 LT> already, and ask yourself whether extending the block size to 48 bits will 
 LT> help or further hurt one of the biggest problems of ext3 right now?

 LT> (And yes, I realize that block numbers are just a small part of it. The 
 LT> "vfs_inode" is also a real problem - it's got _way_ too many large 
 LT> list-heads that explode on a 64-bit kernel, for example. Oh, well. My 
 LT> point is that things like this can make a very real issue _worse_ for all 
 LT> the people who don't care one whit about it)

 LT> 		Linus