[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <20090724231425.GK4231@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:14:25 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2freefrag utility
On Jul 24, 2009 18:32 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> One question --- right now the chunksize (as specified by -c) only
> affects these lines printed by e2freefrag, right?
>
> Chunksize: 1048576 bytes (256 blocks)
> Total chunks: 71681
> Free chunks: 21657 (30.2%)
Yes, pretty much.
> They are a little confusing since "chunk" as used here is different
> from "chunk" used in the next part of the output:
>
> Min free chunk: 4 KB
> Max free chunk: 568232 KB
> Avg free chunk: 188 KB
You're right. "free extent" is better.
> How useful is it to print the "total chunks / free chunks" in the
> general case? I'm guessing this relates to Lutsre's chunking and
> chunksize?
Well, it was important for the hardware RAID setups, to see how many
stripe-aligned free chunks are available in the filesystem. Since
mballoc will also try to allocate/align on "chunk" boundaries this
is useful to know. If this chunksize depended on the superblock
s_raid_stripe_width then it would be more useful for the general public.
> Would it make sense to only print the "Chunksize / Total
> chunks / Free Chunks" if a chunksize is specified explicitly via the
> -c option, and to do a s/chunk/extent/ in the next part of the output,
I don't have a big objection. I don't think there are any tools that
depend on this output.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, 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