[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B964BBD.3070707@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:23:09 -0500
From: jim owens <owens6336@...il.com>
To: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
CC: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Fujita <a-fujita@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow defrag
(EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXT) in 32bit compat mode)
After thinking about it overnight, I realized I think in terms
of 1 drive is 1 filesystem. That is a fatal trap for defragment.
> When I only worried about a few OEM drives, I used to read the zone
> geometry from the drive to see where each speed transition was as the
> density decreased. But that is just not worth the effort in linux
> filesystems IMO, it is enough to pack low.
So I retract that we don't care about zone geometry, we need to
care deeply, but not in the sense of how moving short distances
on a drive affects the performance. What we need to ensure is
that the placer algorithm does not span across partitions as in:
["/" 100GB created] [300GB other] [100G LVM added to "/"]
so the filesystem thinks it is 200GB contiguous and the
defragmenter thinks address 90GB is closer to address 110 GB
than 90GB is to 50GB.
jim
--
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