linux-ext4 - Re: Updated ext4/jbd2 patches based on 2.6.19-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:10:56 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Cc:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...tin.ibm.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Updated ext4/jbd2 patches based on 2.6.19-rc1

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:58:29 -0600
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com> wrote:

> but the patches have not been changed for ext4 (which should really
> default to using extents on a filesystem with the INCOMPAT_EXTENT feature
> set unless told otherwise).  That is a necessity for filesystems larger
> than 2^32 blocks, since there is no way to create old block-mapped files
> past that limit.

That's news to me.  So we only use 48-bit block numbers for extents and
not for old-style indirect blocks?

How much performance improvement do they get, btw?  CPU or IO? I'm not noticing
any difference.

Has been a while since I did any fs testing.  Boy, ext3 is beating the crap
out of ext2 for quality of file layout.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html