Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@...>
Cc: <tux3@...>
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008 - 2:39 am

On Sunday 27 July 2008 14:31, Matthew Dillon wrote:

And there is a mistake, it should be:

- struct extent { unsigned version:10, count:6, block:24; };
+ struct extent { unsigned version:10, count:6, block:48; };

The compression effort was about finding a way to represent 48 bits of
logical address for each extent and to avoid repeating logical addresses
for successive extents starting at the same logical address, using 32
bits instead of the 64 bits currently used by the ddsnap leaf format,
for a 33% overall improvement in leaf capacity.

Regards,

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Tux3 mailing list
Tux3@tux3.org
http://tux3.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tux3

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design, Daniel Phillips, (Mon Jul 28, 2:39 am)
[Tux3] Tux3 time format, Daniel Phillips, (Tue Nov 11, 4:14 am)
Re: [Tux3] Tux3 time format, Maciej Żenczykowski, (Tue Nov 11, 10:13 pm)