linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH, RFC 00/12] bigalloc patchset

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D9B5007.8050403@coly.li>
Date:	Wed, 06 Apr 2011 01:23:19 +0800
From:	Coly Li <i@...y.li>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 00/12] bigalloc patchset

On 2011年03月20日 05:28, Theodore Ts'o Wrote:
> This is an initial patchset of the bigalloc patches to ext4.  This patch
> adds support for clustered allocation, so that each bit in the ext4
> block allocation bitmap addresses a power of two number of blocks.  For
> example, if the file system is mainly going to be storing large files in
> the 4-32 megabyte range, it might make sense to set a cluster size of 1
> megabyte.  This means that each bit in the block allocaiton bitmap would
> now address 256 4k blocks, and it means that the size of the block
> bitmaps for a 2T file system shrinks from 64 megabytes to 256k.  It also
> means that a block group addresses 32 gigabytes instead of 128
> megabytes, also shrinking the amount of file system overhead for
> metadata.
>
> The cost is increased disk space efficiency.  Directories will consume
> 1T, as will extent tree blocks.  (I am on the fence as to whether I
> should add complexity so that in the rare case that an inode needs more
> than 344 extents --- a highly fragmented file indeed --- and need a
> second extent tree block, we can avoid allocating any cluster and
> instead use another block from the cluster used by the inode.  The
> concern is the amount of complexity this adds to the e2fsck, not just to
> the kernel.)
>
> To test these patches, I have used an *extremely* kludgy set of patches
> to e2fsprogs, which are attached below.  These patches need *extensive*
> revision before I would consider them clean enough suitable for
> committing into e2fsprogs, but they were sufficient for me to do the
> kernel-side changes --- mke2fs, dumpe2fs, and debugfs work.  E2fsck most
> definitely does _not_ work at this stage.
>
> Please comment!  I do not intend for these patches to be merged during
> the 2.6.39 merge window.  I am targetting 2.6.40, 3 months from now,
> since these patches are quite extensive.

Hi Ted,

Is it possible to open a git repo/branch for both kernel and user space tools ? So others can follow, help or provide 
performance number in time :-)

Thanks.

Coly

-- 
Coly Li
--
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