Space-saving of UFS1

[Scott Long]

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 13:20, Scott Long написав:
> 
>>The space savings you get from UFS1 is that the inodes are half the size
>>and the indorect blocks can hold more block pointers.  I don't believe
>>that ACLs play a difference here.
> 
> 
> Aren't the ACLs recorded in the inodes -- which would explain, why those are 
> twice larger in UFS2? Thanks!
> 
> 	-mi

The inode size was extended from 128 bytes to 256 bytes to allow for 
64-bit block pointers.  This includes 12 direct block pointers and
one pointer for each of the single, double, and triple indirect blocks.
That didn't fill left some extra space in the 256 bytes, so ACL size
info and block pointers were put in there.  However, ACLs are just a
side effect of the larger size, not the sole reason.  And, ACLs are not
actually stored in the inode, only block pointers to them are.

Scott