On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:40 -0700, Jason Fesler wrote: > > Hard links would be the simplest implementation without needing a > > separate database. Sure you could implement that too if you wanted to. > > It would be worth checking the limits for hard links, and making sure they > are suitable for a large mail system using this scheme, without having a > fallback plan of some sort. > > Looks like UFS hardlink limit is 32767; ext2 32000; reiser and jfs, 65535. > http://www.dirvish.org/viewcvs/dirvish_1_2/FAQ.html?rev=2 see > "Could linking between images be limited by a maximum link count?"
Well, if there are that many copies already it probably doesn't matter
much if the file gets duplicated a few times. The logic can be as easy
as:
if (link(a, b) < 0 && errno == EMLINK) {
copy(a, tmp);
rename(tmp, a);
link(a, b);
}
So the old file with 32k links no longer exists in attachments dir, but
you have a new file which can be linked 32k times more.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
