From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>
To: "Abhishek Rai" <abhishekrai@google.com>
Cc: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@infradead.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rohitseth@google.com,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch]
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:10:20 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200801192010.20699.phillips@phunq.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9885f0f0801170447r1c2bfeb9l6c911bfa0113366f@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 17 January 2008 04:47, Abhishek Rai wrote:
> > if Abhishek wants to pursue it, would be to pull in all of the
> > indirect blocks when the file is opened, and create an in-memory
> > extent tree that would speed up access to the file. It's rarely
> > worth doing this without metaclustering, since it doesn't help for
> > sequential I/O, only random I/O, but with metaclustering it would
> > also be a win for sequential I/O. (This would also remove the
> > minor performance degradation for sequential I/O imposed by
> > metaclustering, and in fact improve it slightly for really big
> > files.)
>
> Also, since the in memory extent tree will now occupy much less
> space, we can keep them cached for a much longer time which will
> improve performance of random reads. The new metaclustering patch is
> more amenable to this trick since it reduces fragmentation thereby
> reducing the number of extents.
I can see value in preemptively loading indirect blocks into the buffer
cache, but is building a second-order extent tree really worth the
effort? Probing the buffer cache is very fast.
Regards,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-20 4:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200801140839.01986.abhishekrai@google.com>
2008-01-15 0:34 ` [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch] Andrew Morton
2008-01-15 11:04 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-15 13:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-15 13:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-15 15:28 ` Theodore Tso
2008-01-17 12:47 ` Abhishek Rai
2008-01-20 4:10 ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2008-01-21 2:51 ` Theodore Tso
2008-01-24 19:04 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-01-15 15:09 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-01-16 5:08 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-16 4:25 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-01-17 11:36 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-01-20 3:55 ` Daniel Phillips
2008-01-23 9:12 Abhishek Rai
2008-01-24 7:49 ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-24 13:14 ` Abhishek Rai
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=200801192010.20699.phillips@phunq.net \
--to=phillips@phunq.net \
--cc=abhishekrai@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rohitseth@google.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox