| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:59:02 +0200 From: Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@...a.inka.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance On Fri, 4 May 2007 10:46:10 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Which means the right place to fix this is samba. Samba just need > to intersept lseek and pread/pwrite to never allocate sparse files > but do the right thing instead. Now what the right thing would probably > be a preallocate instead of writing zeroes, and we need to provide the > infrastructure for them to do it, which is in progress currently. Why do preallocate and not just truncate the file? If the write is a single 0x00 somewhere beyond EOF, as appears to be the pattern, truncate will do just as well if not better. And it is available now. Jörn -- Joern's library part 6: http://www.gzip.org/zlib/feldspar.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists