From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57934 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162584Ab3DETbv (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:31:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:31:34 +0200 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: How to re-use default sequential filenames? Message-ID: <20130405193134.GC12244@kernel.dk> References: <515DAA33.4000009@warnerbros.com> <20130404181946.GD9683@kernel.dk> <20130404184104.GE9683@kernel.dk> <20130405084056.GM9683@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: fio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: fio@vger.kernel.org To: Michal =?utf-8?B?xaBtdWNy?= Cc: Alan Hagge , fio@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 05 2013, Michal Šmucr wrote: > 2013/4/5 Jens Axboe : > > It would not be a problem making the block size decision probed or > > dynamic. But it's not clear to me from the above what you would base it > > on. The file size? Or st_blksize? > > I'm sorry Jens, i wasn't much clear regarding this. I meant file size - st_size. OK, so how would you size the block size based on the file size? That's the part that isn't quite clear to me. There could be a number of valid options in that area, and things like buffered/unbuffered IO might influence that as well. In other words, it would involve some heuristics, which I'm never that crazy about adding. But tell me what you are proposing in detail, and we can take it from there :-) -- Jens Axboe