> > Right! That's why I was asking about putting the fallback
> back in. It can't
> > hurt anyone if it isn't used, and in this case, it's not a terribly
> > inefficient operation, since the ideal AFS cache is
> dedicated to the task.
>
> reiserfs 3.5 fallback would not work. Or rather it would intolerably
> inefficient (in reiserfs, inode can be looked up given two
> 32bit numbers:
> unique objectid and objectid of parent directory (mostly).
> Fallback just
> scans *all* possible parent objects ids and there may be billions of
> them).
>
> What I meant is some special code, that knows objectid
> (==inode numbers)
> of afs cache dirs and uses this knowledge to speed search up.
> Forgive my
> complete incompetence on afs.
Actually, in the ideal case of an AFS cache being on it's own filesystem,
there should only be 1 directory on the whole filesystem (and maybe
lost+found), which is why it ran fine on 3.5.
-- Nathan
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/openafs-devel
