> The conclusion that I came to as a result of looking at this (and a lot
> more) data was that the wrong thing to do is worry about single files.
> What you want to do is to figure out how to put mutiple files in one
> "file" - essentially make tar be a part of the file system where you put
> related files in the same "tarball". Then when you access any file -
> metadata or data - then you schlep in the entire tarball and explode it
> in memory. Food for thought.
I think the idea is flawed.
You're building a filesystem in a filesystem to overcome your
"non-optimal" original file system. Either replace your original fs
or create your tar file.
Stacker (& later a MS deviate) under that other OS did something like
that and compressed the volume as well. I think the product was
pretty successful (MS stole the code) but I don't know how good the
"technology" is (you still need information to locate your "file",
access it and decompress it - what happens when you extend a "file"
etc).
As a side note (aprox current US prices):
9.1 GB UW-SCSI, 7200 rpm harddrive: ~$290
18 GB UW-SCSI, 7200 rpm harddrive: ~$600
I paid ~$600 for a 9.1 GB about a year ago (and I still have 2 GB
free). E.g. the pace of technology is probably against your idea.
/Allan
-- Allan M. Wind mailto:wind@sap-help.com Manager Information Systems phone: 781.359.9791 (general) Integration Associates, Inc. phone: 781.273.0195 ext. 205 (direct) 55 Cambridge Street, Suite 301 fax: 781.359.9789 Burlington, MA 01803 http://www.sap-help.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/