[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090316063830.GC6357@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:38:30 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tux3@...3.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Tux3] Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available
Dave,
It wasn't my intention to say that XFS was bad; in fact, I thought I
was actually complementing XFS by talking about some of the advanced
features that XFS had (many of which I have always said that ext3 has,
and some of which ext4 still does not have, and probably never will
have). I stand corrected on some of the details that I got wrong.
What I was trying to say was that *if* (and perhaps I'm
misunderstanding fsblock) that fsblock is requiring that as soon as a
page is dirty, fsblock requests the filesystem to assign a block
allocation to the buffers attached to the dirty page, that this would
spike out delayed allocation, which would be unfortunate for *both*
ext4 and XFS.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what fsblock is doing, and there isn't
a problem here.
Regards,
- Ted
--
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