On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
<flameeyes@...> wrote:
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> writes:
>
>> - Space savings.  Certainly your scheme may be smaller, but the XML
>> tag overhead may eat into the savings.  You should do some estimates
>> to show the community how much smaller the tree will be from this
>> proposal.
>
> Sorry but you lost me on any point you might have brought across since
> after this I feel like you were trying to put words in my mouth.

Sorry for that, I never meant to imply that you said space savings.

That being said I still don't see the usefulness here.

You seem to think that using the existing APIs for this data is wrong,
and I think the opposite, so I guess we will agree to disagree on this
matter.

>
> Beside, if you really want to go down that road you should be counting
> that beside ReiserFS with tail, I don't remember any other Linux FS that
> has block smaller than 512bytes, which means that each file in metadata
> cache is taking up much more than just its size in characters.
>
> All your math is thus wrong.

As was pointed out on IRC, UTF8 characters are not a fixed size,
making my math even more wrong ;)

>
> --
> Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>