@Jonathan_Blow @cmuratori Calling PAK/WAD files "virtual filesystems" is common usage though? (And, on Linux, often done via a FUSE FS!)
-
-
Replying to @rygorous
@Jonathan_Blow@cmuratori See e.g. https://icculus.org/physfs/ or http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Programming_a_Virtual_File_System-Part_I.shtml …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous@Jonathan_Blow Actually the part I was talking about was the "we achieved 1 physical IO per image served".2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Well, depending on number of images, number of requests and their distribution, this could be either good or very bad. :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori Like for a static site that's really bad obviously, but for say some random image somebody linked on their Facebook feed, sure!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori In that case, baked PAKs + metadata in RAM is better than a real FS filename lookup (which is likely to trigger its own IO).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@rygorous I'm just saying he's talking about optimizing physical IO, _but then they didn't do that_. Eg., https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi10/tech/full_papers/Beaver.pdf …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Erm, that's exactly what I just described though. PAK-file style layout (just name+offs+size, linear) with metadata cached in RAM2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@rygorous This is the whole point of _actually_ writing your own filesystem.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@cmuratori @rygorous I'm not talking about this vs. storing files on the drive. I'm talking about this vs. an actual filesystem.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.