Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So can anyone tell me why xattrs weren't handled in the same way as ACLs? It
> smells of inside-the-box-thinking, but I'm no FS expert and there may very
> well be a good reason.
They are:
ACLs (ar least in UFS) are inside a shadow inode that is
ref
Gregory Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't disagree with the below, however, you can run your mac on UFS
> instead of HFS+. Since UFS hasn't been mac-ified, I'm wondering if
> the below is actually true for all filesystem types.
It seems that UFS has been "mac-ified" on MacOS X.
IIR
Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that's the disconnect. WHY are they "full-fledged files"?
>
> Because that's what the specification calls for. If they weren't
> full-fledged files, they wouldn't be compatable with existing
> interfaces. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad th
Al Hopper wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Matthew A. Ahrens wrote:
# zpool history jen
History for 'jen':
2006-04-27T10:38:36 zpool create jen mirror ...
I have two suggestions which are just minor nits compared with the rest of this
discussion:
1. Why do you print a "T" between the da
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, Microsoft's FAT does it the same way - the dirent is the inode.
>
> This creates locking nightmares in its own right - directory scans/updates
> may be blocking file access; at the very least, the two race. It might
> have advantages in some situat
Roch Bourbonnais - Performance Engineering schrieb:
A already noted, this needs not be different from other FS
but is still an interesting question. I'll touch 3 aspects
here
- reported freemem
- syscall writes to mmap pages
- application write throttling
Reported free
I was doing some tests with creating and removing subdirectories and
watching the time that takes. The directory retains the size and
performance issues after the files are removed.
/rootz/test> ls -la .
total 42372
drwxr-xr-x 2 add root 2 May 7 23:20 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 root s
