[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <34CA4C93-194F-45F3-9A94-E181A7DFEBCE@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:47:51 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mkfs.ext4 vs. e2fsck discard oddities
On Feb 29, 2012, at 2:12 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>
> The reason is (as I commented in the patch #2) that we will not discard
> BLOCK_UNINIT groups. We use BLOCK_UNINIT as a optimization measure to
> skip groups which are likely to be non-provisioned, because we have
> never written there anything since the mkfs.
>
> If you create file system without discard, then obviously nothing is
> discarded, image is fully provisioned and e2fsck discard *only* initialized
> groups. So you'll end up with the bigger image, in case that your image was
> not sparse.
i still think it makes sense to have an option where we discard everything
including BLOCK_UNINIT blocks. Mke2fs doesn't discard blocks by default
because of a fear of crappy SSD drives, and while that fear may be
overstated, assuming that all of the unused blocks will *always* have been
discarded at mkfs time isn't necessarily a good thing to assume. I'll grant
that it might be a fine default, but there needs to be *some* way to discard
everything that's unused….
-- Ted
--
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