Re: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0

Peter T Mount wrote:

> How about dropping the suffix, so you would have:
> 
>         .../data/2/tablename
> 
> Doing that doesn't mean having to increase the filename buffer size, just
> the format and arg order (from %s.%d to %d/%s).
> 
> I'd think we could add a test when the new segment is created for the
> symlink/directory. If it doesn't exist, then create it. Otherwise a poor
> unsuspecting user would have their database fall over, not realising where
> the error is.

This sounds like attempting to solve the "2 Gig limit" along with data
distribution across multiple drives at the same time. I like the
solution
to the first part, but I'm not entirely sure that this is an effective
solution to data distribution.

Specifically, distribution of data should be administerable in some
fashion. So, that means you would want to control how much data
is placed on each drive.  Further, you would not want to fill up
one drive before floating over to the next

Consider 10 1 Gig tables split across two 6 gig drives. Doesn't work
very well if the overlow only happens after 1 Gig. Then, consider
10 1 Gig tables split across a 3 Gig and an 8 Gig drive. Again, doesn't
work very well with ANY sort of fixed size splitting scheme.

I'd suggest making the max file size 1 Gig default, configurable
someplace, and solving the data distribution as a separate effort.

Thomas

------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Reinke                            Tel: (416) 460-7021
Director of Technology                   Fax: (416) 598-2319
E-Soft Inc.                         http://www.e-softinc.com