Space-saving of UFS1

[Scott Long]

Robert Watson wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> While the technical statements above are correct, actually, the extended 
> attribute storage was the primary motivation for getting UFS2 
> development kicked off.  Since it required rolling the file system 
> layout, we did 64-bit support at the same time, dropped back in the 
> birth time, etc.
> 
> Robert N M Watson

Ah, sorry, I had it backwards.

Scott