On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:31:03PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Mar 03, 2002 21:04 -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 03:08:54AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > The main disconnect there is sub-page sized writes, you will bundle together
> > > young and old 1K buffers. Since it's getting harder to find a 1K blocksize
> > > filesystem, we might not care.
> >
> > Please don't do that.
> >
> > Hopefully, once this is in, 1k blocks will work much better. There are many
> > cases where people work with lots of small files, and using 1k blocks is bad
> > enough, 4k would be worse.
> >
> > Also, with dhash going into ext2/3 lots of tiny files in one dir will be
> > feasible and comparible with reiserfs.
>
> Actually, there are a whole bunch of performance issues with 1kB block
> ext2 filesystems. For very small files, you are probably better off
> to have tails in EAs stored with the inode, or with other tails/EAs in
> a shared block. We discussed this on ext2-devel a few months ago, and
> while the current ext2 EA design is totally unsuitable for that, it
> isn't impossible to fix.
Great, we're finally heading tward dual sized blocks (or clusters or etc).
I'll be looking forward to that. :)
Do you think it'll look like block tails (like ffs?) or will it be more like
tail packing in reiserfs?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:31 EST