* O_DIRECT and delayed allocation question
@ 2009-06-18 19:53 Curt Wohlgemuth
2009-06-19 11:55 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Curt Wohlgemuth @ 2009-06-18 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ext4 development
This might be a question with an obvious answer, but I'd like
verification one way or the other.
Does the use of O_DIRECT essentially disable delayed allocation for a
given file?
My simple tests show a larger degree of block fragmentation for files
written using O_DIRECT than without, and on its face, this makes sense
to me. This fragmentation can be removed by using fallocate() on a
file before extending it with writes.
(Strictly speaking, I guess the use of O_DIRECT wouldn't "disable"
delayed allocation, since the blocks are allocated at the "normal"
time -- when going to disk. But effectively there would be a lot less
block grouping available to build large extents if each write goes to
disk immediately, instead of going through the page cache.)
Thanks,
Curt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: O_DIRECT and delayed allocation question
2009-06-18 19:53 O_DIRECT and delayed allocation question Curt Wohlgemuth
@ 2009-06-19 11:55 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2009-06-19 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Curt Wohlgemuth; +Cc: ext4 development
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:53:17PM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
> This might be a question with an obvious answer, but I'd like
> verification one way or the other.
>
> Does the use of O_DIRECT essentially disable delayed allocation for a
> given file?
>
> My simple tests show a larger degree of block fragmentation for files
> written using O_DIRECT than without, and on its face, this makes sense
> to me. This fragmentation can be removed by using fallocate() on a
> file before extending it with writes.
>
> (Strictly speaking, I guess the use of O_DIRECT wouldn't "disable"
> delayed allocation, since the blocks are allocated at the "normal"
> time -- when going to disk. But effectively there would be a lot less
> block grouping available to build large extents if each write goes to
> disk immediately, instead of going through the page cache.)
>
exactly. So it is possible that we are getting smaller number of block
request in O_DIRECT case. But you should still see better block
allocation because of mballoc. mballoc normalize the input block request
count based on the file size. w.r.t fallocate I have noticed one problem with O_DIRECT
which is explained in the url below. So there may be performance impact on using
O_DIRECT with fallocate.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/13762
-aneesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-06-19 11:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-06-18 19:53 O_DIRECT and delayed allocation question Curt Wohlgemuth
2009-06-19 11:55 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).