"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> > * userland issues (what, you thought that limits on the
> > command size will go away?)
> Last I checked, the command line size limit wasn't a userland issue, but
> rather a limit of the kernel exec(). This might have changed.
Actually this is also a serious problem. We have a ticketing system
at work that stores all its data in files in large directories, and I
discovered recently that I can only pass about a tenth of the current
file names on a command line. Yes, we have xargs, but ...
Also (this happens to be Solaris on a 8 x 40MHz Sparc system) there
is a significant delay just to read the directory.
> > * portability
Also an issue. Fortunately we store a lot of data on NetApps, so
the performance of the filesystem as such is less of an issue; but,
that means the size of the data transfer across the network involved
in reading a directory can become an issue too.
> > The point being: applications and users _do_ know better what structure
> > is there. Kernel can try to second-guess them and be real good at that, but
> > inability to second-guess is the last of the reasons why aforementioned
> > strategies are used.
All good points ...
> However, there are issues where users and applications don't want to
> structure their namespace for the convenience of the kernel, for good or
> bad reasons.
But there are other reasons (besides the kernel's and filesystems'
handling of directories and name lookups). I think you're spot on
about the performance issues and on-disk structures, though.
> -hpa
-- /* Bill Crawford, Unix Systems Developer, ebOne, formerly GTS Netcom */ #include "stddiscl.h" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/