From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: presotto@closedmind.org
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011106180734.204A4199B5@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Tue,  6 Nov 2001 13:07:32 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 16d93738-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>Right now, if I want a given file to appear *here* in my visible
>filespace, there are two ways: I can bind it, I can move/copy it.

Making copies of something is very different than adding a new
name for it.  Are you suggesting that one can get away with
one or the other?  Not attacking, just trying to understand.

>And, if I want a very different visible filespace from other users, I
>get that by doing a very large number of binds, but that has bad
>performance costs because it was assumed that users wouldn't have a
>huge number of them.

The number would have to be truly huge to get a measurable
performance hit, the table is hashed fairly well.  Similarly,
forking a new name space is rare enough that the copy wouldn't
hurt much unless we're talking megabytes.  What
exactly are you thinking of?  Or is it actually setting
up the table in the first place?