| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> - Space savings. Certainly your scheme may be smaller, but the XML |
| 6 |
>> tag overhead may eat into the savings. You should do some estimates |
| 7 |
>> to show the community how much smaller the tree will be from this |
| 8 |
>> proposal. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Sorry but you lost me on any point you might have brought across since |
| 11 |
> after this I feel like you were trying to put words in my mouth. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sorry for that, I never meant to imply that you said space savings. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That being said I still don't see the usefulness here. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You seem to think that using the existing APIs for this data is wrong, |
| 18 |
and I think the opposite, so I guess we will agree to disagree on this |
| 19 |
matter. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Beside, if you really want to go down that road you should be counting |
| 23 |
> that beside ReiserFS with tail, I don't remember any other Linux FS that |
| 24 |
> has block smaller than 512bytes, which means that each file in metadata |
| 25 |
> cache is taking up much more than just its size in characters. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> All your math is thus wrong. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
As was pointed out on IRC, UTF8 characters are not a fixed size, |
| 30 |
making my math even more wrong ;) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò |
| 35 |
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 36 |
> |
Archives