From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263466AbUBHLit (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:38:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263475AbUBHLit (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:38:49 -0500 Received: from pr-117-210.ains.net.au ([202.147.117.210]:6341 "EHLO mail.ocs.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263466AbUBHLir (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:38:47 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Keith Owens To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Hans Reiser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [IDEA] - run-length compaction of block numbers In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:20:51 CDT." <200401191620.i0JGKqKe012285@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:38:06 +1100 Message-ID: <31255.1076240286@ocs3.ocs.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:20:51 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >I don't know how IBM did disk space management on the earlier systems >such as the 1401, 7040, and 7090 series, but I'd suspect it was a similar >extent-based method. Can't speak for the 1401 or 7xxx series. IBM 1620[*], which was obsolete back in 1977 when I programmed it, also used extent based disk directories. There were three directory areas on disk, one to map file names to extent indexes, one to map the used extents on the disk and one to map the free space extents. [*] Binary coded decimal. Each digit had 4 numeric bits plus two flag bits. Two adjacent digits made a letter (and you thought that Unicode was bad!). Card punch or paper tape in/out. No printer, feed the cards through a separate machine for that. 20,000 digits of memory with a 2 Mb disk drive was a big machine. Five digit addressing with one nice feature, if the flag bit was set on the rightmost digit of an address then it was automatically treated as an indirect address and the real address was fetched from the area referenced by this address, the real address could also be flagged as indirect and the process would continue. The IBM manual claimed that indirect addresses required no extra time (nothing changes about computer claims :). The student's idea of fun was to load all of memory with indirect addresses, each pointing to the next with loop around. Refer to the first and watch the big panel lights slowly cycle through all of memory doing nothing useful.