> > I'll look into it, but I was already wondering if we shouldn't bound
> > the number of tapes somehow. It's a bit hard to believe that 28000
> > tapes is a sane setting.
>
> Well, since they are not actually tapes, why not?
I wonder what the OS does when we repeatedly open and close those files
because we are short on filedescriptors ? Will it replace cached pages
of a file that we have closed *more* aggressively ?
Maybe we should limit the files to how many files we would actually be
able
to hold open in parallel ? Or keep more that one "tape" in one file
and remember a start offset into the file per tape.
Andreas
