[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140116193023.GH12751@kvack.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:30:23 -0500
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4: indirect block allocations not sequential in 3.4.67 and 3.11.7
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 02:12:27PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> An 8MB file will require two indirect blocks. If you are using
> extents, almost certainly it will fit inside the inode, which means we
> don't need any external metadata blocks. That massively speeds up
> fsck time, and unlink time, and it also speeds up the random read case
> since the best way to optimize a seek is to eliminate it. :-)
> I understand that for your use case, it would be hard to move to using
> extents right away. But I think you'd see so many improvements from
> going to ext4 and extents that it might be more efficient to optimize
> an indirect blocok scheme.
Unfortunately, the improvements from extents for our use-case are not
enough to outweigh the other costs of deployment. I think I've figured
out a hack that results in the system doing most of what I want it to do:
I've removed EXT4_MB_HINT_DATA in ext4_alloc_blocks(). With that change,
the allocator is giving me mostly sequential allocations. Hopefully that
doesn't have any other negative side effects.
-ben
> - Ted
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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