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.
Good luck with your 256 characters.
When you run out of characters, you simply create another 0 byte file to encode the rest.
Check mate, storage manufacturers.
File name file system! Looks like we broke the universe! Wait, why is my MFT so large?!
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.
…Just asking, just asking: Why is the default
FILENAME_MAXon Linux/glibc4096?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.
Thanks! Got an answer and not 200 downvotes. This is why I love Lemm-Lemm.