From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:56950 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752788Ab2JaJje (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 05:39:34 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id hz1so837939pad.19 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 02:39:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <508FB45B.9040101@gmail.com> <508FC26A.1010206@pepinghege.net> <50904949.8010603@gmail.com> <20121030221412.GB11422@carfax.org.uk> <20121030221947.GC11422@carfax.org.uk> <50906702.1010608@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:39:33 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why btrfs inline small file by default? From: cwillu To: Ahmet Inan Cc: ching , Hugo Mills , Felix Pepinghege , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Ahmet Inan wrote: > i also dont see any benefit from inlining small files: > with defaults (inlining small files): > real 4m39.253s > Data: total=10.01GB, used=9.08GB > Metadata, DUP: total=2.00GB, used=992.48MB > without inline: > real 4m42.085s > Data: total=11.01GB, used=10.85GB > Metadata, DUP: total=1.00GB, used=518.59MB I suggest you take a closer look at your numbers.