[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTil5Gl0-rWClRsLZby_c37bQu5RB_tCgHsxTFshO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:51:12 -0700
From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@...efedyk.com>
To: Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@....com>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
Mat <jackdachef@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
The development of BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal
fragmentation in Btrfs)
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@....com> wrote:
> Just an FYI reminder. The original test (2K files) is utterly
> pathological for disk drives with 4K physical sectors, such as
> those now shipping from WD, Seagate, and others. Some of the
> SSDs have larger (16K0 or smaller blocks (2K). There is also
> the issue of btrfs over RAID (which I know is not entirely
> sensible, but which will happen).
>
> The absolute minimum allocation size for data should be the same
> as, and aligned with, the underlying disk block size. If that
> results in underutilization, I think that's a good thing for
> performance, compared to read-modify-write cycles to update
> partial disk blocks.
Block size = 4k
Btrfs packs smaller objects into the blocks in certain cases.
--
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