> Michael O'Reilly writes:
> > ebiederm+eric@npwt.net (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> > > MR> Even in this, there's still a win from not needing to allocate a fixed
> > > MR> amount of inodes.
> > >
> > > And again see btree based filesystems. There is reiserfs in the
> > > works, as well as my own shmfs filesystem (though because it has
> > > different prioirties, it doesn't yet keep all inodes in the btree) but
> > > basically with such a beast it is possible, to keep inodes in the
> > > directory tree.
> >
> > I've had a number of people point these out, but there's not a
> > terribly good option for me. I need a stable filesystem, so the
> > smallest possible change for the largest gain.
>
> Your proposed changes to ext2fs would not exactly be "smallest
> possible change". It could introduce all kinds of bugs.
Yup. But it's a good deal smaller than a brand new filesystem. :)
Michael.