On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:55:56AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > > > I'm still not sure which code in vdi_lookup() is a problem. The > > > > problem happens even when we disable VID garbage collection? > > > > > > vdi_lookup() becomes a problem if Hitoshi's patch is enabled after he > > > fixes a fatal bug of new algorithm. > > I don't think Hitoshi says he will enable the new algorithm by default > after the fatal bug is fixed. There is a performance problem as you > mentioned, > and I'm fine with making it disabled by default in future.
Okay, I'm fine with it too. > > > > I need to add that, old sheep can reuse vid by checking inode's name, so > > vid recycling is unnecessary. It is proved simple and reliable, at the cost > > of allow deleted inodes stored on the storage, but the space overhead is > > too small to notice. > > If you are talking about reverting 21549a1b, it sounds wrong - it's not a > subtle bug fix but a critical one. > The old algorithm corrupts inode objects if we don't add --no-share option, > no? It only corrupts data objects I think, but yes, it is problematic. > Even if you think it's a corner use case, there is no technical way > to prevent users from doing the operation. Okay, keep old algorithm as a in-house patch sounds better. Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
