On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, 3 November 2006 11:00:58 -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> >
> > it seems to me that you only need to be able to represent a range of the
> > most recent 65536 crashes... and could have an online process which goes
> > about "refreshing" old objects to move them forward to the most recent
> > crash state. as long as you know the minimm on-disk crash count you can
> > use it as an offset.
>
> You really don't want to go down that path. Doubling the storage size
> will double the work necessary to move old objects - hard to imagine a
> design that scales worse.
there's no doubling of storage size required.
-dean
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
