On Oct 31, 2002 10:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > What about chaing truncate_inode_pages to take an additional len
> > argument so you don't have to remove all pages past an offset?
>
> Actually, we may want that for other reasons anyway. In particular, I can
> well imagine why a networked filesystem in particular might want to
> invalidate a range of a file cache, but not necessarily all of it.
>
> (Yeah, I don't know of any network filesystem that does invalidation on
> anything but a file granularity, but I assume such filesystems have to
> exist. Especially in cluster environments it sounds like a sane thing to
> do invalidates on a finer granularity)
Yes, we definitely need such a beast for Lustre. Currently (because we
haven't gotten around to fixing it) we invalidate the whole file if
there is a lock conflict when we really only want to invalidate a
page or range of pages.
Our "performance" release isn't until next year - we're still working
on "performant" right now, but in the case of multiple clients writing
to non-overlapping areas in a file, or different files we're still
pretty good - abount 1.5GB/s aggregate write speed with 20 storage targets.
We have 62 storage targets in our target environment, but haven't done
a full tests because we're working on some nasty distributed metadata
bugs right now. Since the client->target I/O is pretty much independent,
there should be no problems hitting 4.5 GB/s aggregate write speed.
Cheers, Andreas
-- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/- 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 Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:22 EST