From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: [PATCH] various allocator optimizations Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:03:50 +0300 Message-ID: <3E6F3E46.4030101@namesys.com> References: <1047400482.8215.312.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030311194205.A4493@namesys.com> <1047403968.8219.337.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6E584D.4080809@namesys.com> <1047421551.8219.448.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6E674E.4040305@namesys.com> <1047433739.8215.487.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E6F1635.2010305@namesys.com> <1047476132.8218.510.camel@tiny.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1047476132.8218.510.camel@tiny.suse.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Chris Mason Cc: Oleg Drokin , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Chris Mason wrote: >On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 06:12, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > >>>I like the idea of a dynamic in-kernel fragmentation tool though, you >>>mark a file as being in need of reallocation, and it happens before io >>>or something (hand waving is fun). >>> >>> >>> >>You mean you like the allocate on flush we do in reiser4? >> >>Perhaps I should say only that for 80% of machines 80% of the files >>never move during the course of a week.;-) >> >>allocate on flush will improve a lot of the cases, and an online >>repacker will improve a lot of the ones that allocate on flush does not >>improve. >> >> > >None of which solves the question of how do we lay things out on disk >;-) > >-chris > > > > > > Well, okay, so what are you proposing and what are your benchmarks? This is an area where the algorithms are simple but their consequences are just guesses until they are measured. -- Hans