[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061026093030.GL3509@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:30:30 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Alex Tomas <alex@...sterfs.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Ext3 online defrag
On Oct 25, 2006 16:54 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> I've just not yet decided how to handle indirect
> blocks in case of relocation in the middle of the file. Should they be
> relocated or shouldn't they? Probably they should be relocated at least
> in case they are fully contained in relocated interval or maybe better
> said when all the blocks they reference to are also in the interval
> (this handles also the case of EOF). But still if you would like to
> relocate the file by parts this is not quite what you want (you won't be
> able to relocate indirect blocks in the boundary of intervals) :(.
I suspect that the natural choice for metadata blocks is to keep the
block which has the most metadata unchanged. For example, if you are
doing a full-file relocation then you would naturally keep all of the
new {dt}indirect blocks. If you are relocating a small chunk of the
file you would keep the old {dt}indirect blocks and just copy a few
block pointers over.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
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