From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37627 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752329Ab3CXBLm (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:11:42 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UJZTf-0001QR-E1 for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:12:03 +0100 Received: from 50-0-67-239.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com ([50.0.67.239]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:12:03 +0100 Received: from rogerb by 50-0-67-239.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:12:03 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Roger Binns Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: document mount options in Documentation/fs/btrfs.txt Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:11:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: <514DEB06.7000606@redhat.com> <514E2F69.1030204@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <514E2F69.1030204@redhat.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/03/13 15:40, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I imagine it depends on the details of the workload & storage as well. If the people who write btrfs can't come up with some measures to deem appropriateness, then how can the administrators who have even less information :-) I suspect file size has nothing to do with it, and it is entirely about the volume of random writes. (But as a correlator smaller files are unlikely to get many random writes because they contain less useful information than larger files.) Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFOUr0ACgkQmOOfHg372QSIsgCg3D1k0dL/2bMQpzHRDdlMkUo2 TT8AoI11eLAdAv6iQPweHaeVUiJNSRf6 =OVVq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----