All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Dolev Raviv <draviv@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	'Tanya Brokhman' <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: planning general storage capacity for y fs
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:06:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <553DEDFE.2000700@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <007201d080bf$96a0e4e0$c3e2aea0$@codeaurora.org>

Am 27.04.2015 um 09:55 schrieb Dolev Raviv:
> Thanks Richard!
> Let me rephrase the question: In the past I knew there was a rule of thumb, 'leave free 30% of the storage space'. Nowadays I couldn't find any reference to this.

Most likely because this is and was always kind of superstition. ;)
An almost full filesystems has to do more to find free space, but I don't dare to
give rules of thumb.

> I was wondering, is there a known point in UBIFS (or ext4), where leaving less free storage space, that performance is dropping? Maybe a ratio of free-occupied is not the right way to look at it, but to leave a certain size free (e.g. 50MB)?

I don't think so. Maybe Ted can give you more details on ext4.
For UBIFS I'd say, figure yourself. i.e. run benchmarks...

Thanks,
//richard

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Dolev Raviv <draviv@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	'Tanya Brokhman' <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: planning general storage capacity for y fs
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:06:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <553DEDFE.2000700@nod.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <007201d080bf$96a0e4e0$c3e2aea0$@codeaurora.org>

Am 27.04.2015 um 09:55 schrieb Dolev Raviv:
> Thanks Richard!
> Let me rephrase the question: In the past I knew there was a rule of thumb, 'leave free 30% of the storage space'. Nowadays I couldn't find any reference to this.

Most likely because this is and was always kind of superstition. ;)
An almost full filesystems has to do more to find free space, but I don't dare to
give rules of thumb.

> I was wondering, is there a known point in UBIFS (or ext4), where leaving less free storage space, that performance is dropping? Maybe a ratio of free-occupied is not the right way to look at it, but to leave a certain size free (e.g. 50MB)?

I don't think so. Maybe Ted can give you more details on ext4.
For UBIFS I'd say, figure yourself. i.e. run benchmarks...

Thanks,
//richard

  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-27  8:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-26 11:14 planning general storage capacity for y fs Dolev Raviv
2015-04-26 20:45 ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-26 20:45   ` Richard Weinberger
2015-04-27  7:55   ` Dolev Raviv
2015-04-27  7:55     ` Dolev Raviv
2015-04-27  8:06     ` Richard Weinberger [this message]
2015-04-27  8:06       ` Richard Weinberger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=553DEDFE.2000700@nod.at \
    --to=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=draviv@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=tlinder@codeaurora.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.