| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:28:05 +0900 From: Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com> To: Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com> CC: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11 RESEND] libe2p: Add new function get_fragment_score() 2011/06/18 16:19, Andreas Dilger wrote: > I was thinking about this, and am wondering if it makes sense to have an absolute score for fragmentation > instead of a relative one? > > By absolute I mean something like fragments per MB or similar. A bad score might be anything> 1. For > files smaller than 1 MB in size it would scale the ratio to the equivalent if the file was 1MB in size > (e.g. a 16kB file with 4 fragments would have a score of 256, which is clearly bad). Large files can > have a score much less than 1, which is good. I think fragments per MB is easy to understand. I will fix the library function to "double e2p_get_fragscore(int fd)". To return fragments per MB, it will get the number of extents and the total length of extents except the following special cases: - The extent whose initialize status is different from the next extent - There is a hole between the extent and the next extent - The extent is a tail The output of filefrag would be as follows: # filefrag /mnt/mp1/testfile /mnt/mp1/testfile: 4 extents found, 0.75 fragments/MB Regards, Kazuya Mio -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists