> > People cry for ext3, because they want faster fsck. Really, ext2 does
> > horribly when it comes to fsck: for me fsck took 6 minutes. ... Also,
> > ext2 does pretty bad when it comes to deleting large files:
>
> Use large block sizes then. It makes a huge difference.
I could go to 4K if I re-mkfs-ed my disks. But even with 4K blocks, my
patch still does difference.
Guys with 100G disks can not get more than 4K blocks -- so this is
still going to work for them.
> > This has one common problem under it: indirect blocks are spread all
> > over the media with big holes between them.
>
> They are close to the data, though. Placing indirect information in a
> separate cluster of blocks may make it easier to do metadata-only
> operations like fsck and unlink, but it will just slow down things which
> actually access data too. That seems like a crazy thing to want to do!
Well - not at all.
I'm slowing down data operation by 5% or so. (Don't know how to
benchmark this).
I'm speeding up metadata operation by 100% or so.
You see? It does not seem that crazy now.
People _want_ to slow normal operation down in exchange for faster
fsck. (Did you hear that cries for journalling?) Journalling certainly
_will_ slow common operations down but makes fsck faster.
Pavel
-- I'm really pavel@ucw.cz. Look at http://195.113.31.123/~pavel. Pavel Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/