From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]:34920 "EHLO mail-ig0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751367AbcATPlF (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:41:05 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id t15so104381222igr.0 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:41:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Interjection: autodefrag mount option aye, nae? To: Al <6401e46d@opayq.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <5697D0E9.3080007@gmail.com> <20160114192647.GB24567@localhost.localdomain> <5697F9E7.1020004@gmail.com> From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: <569FAA4E.1040204@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:39:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2016-01-20 10:33, Al wrote: > [very quietly] I've had autodefrag out of my mount options for a long while > now. Is that still the recommended position? I think it really depends on what you're doing. In my case, I usually have it on, and the only issue I've ever seen is that Chrome sometimes loads pages from local cache slower than it should be. I also don't use ridiculous numbers of snapshots either (I use them only to get a stable view of the filesystem when generating a backup), so I don't have much experience with how they interact with autodefrag.