From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <63884bcf-d00e-470e-b931-7e5be3f7bce8@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> References: <63884bcf-d00e-470e-b931-7e5be3f7bce8@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:03:54 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [9fans] Regarding venti block size From: Russ Cox To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: a1a85bc8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > The problem is that I was planning on keeping the number of parts is > fixed. So depending on the file size, the part size will vary. And > therefore sometimes the (part block) that I store will be more than > the current upper limit of 64k. > > It would be great if you could let me know your thoughts on this. I think you will need to rewrite both venti and the venti protocol to get around the 64k limit. I started to do this once and decided it was too large a change to bother. If you don't care about coalescing duplicate blocks (and you don't seem to), why not use an extent-based file system instead? Russ