Programmer Humor

23200 readers

524 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

856

ultimate storage hack (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

80 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

255, generally, because null termination. ZFS does 1023, the argument not being "people should have long filenames" but "unicode exists", ReiserFS 4032, Reiser4 3976. Not that anyone uses Reiser, any more. Also Linux' PATH_MAX of 4096 still applies. Though that's in the end just a POSIX define, I'm not sure whether that limit is actually enforced by open(2)... man page speaks of ENAMETOOLONG but doesn't give a maximum.

It's not like filesystems couldn't support it it's that FS people consider it pointless. ZFS does, in principle, support gigantic file metadata but using it would break use cases like having a separate vdev for your volume's metadata. What's the point of having (effectively) separate index drives when your data drives are empty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

...Just asking, just asking: Why is the default FILENAME_MAX on Linux/glibc 4096?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago

Because PATH_MAX is? Also because it's a 4k page.

FILENAME_MAX is not safe to use for buffer allocations btw it could be INT_MAX.