linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tytso@mit.edu
To: Vyacheslav Dubeyko <Vyacheslav.Dubeyko@acronis.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: About strange behaviour of ext4 allocation algorithm
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:07:51 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091223120751.GA21594@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41BA663C8B2F72499F48B0EF991C188E0478A366D3@RU-EXSTRCL1.ru.corp.acronis.com>

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:52:48PM +0300, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>  
> I use kernel: 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22
> EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux.

Yeah, that was before a massive number of changes to the ext4
allocator.  The changes to the allocators which speed up fsck
described here:

http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2009/02/26/fast-ext4-fsck-times-revisited/

All went in *after* 2.6.29.  That is, how the block and inode
allocators worked change significantly between 2.6.29 and 2.6.31.

> > If you delete your file, without reformatting the filesystem, and
> > then re-run the test, does it produce the same results?  If not,
> > then it is likely you are seeing the problem with uninitialized
> > groups that was fixed a month or two ago.
> 
> After deletion of the file and re-run test (without reformatting the
> filesystem) I have slightly different extents' tree. Index block
> (depth of the tree = 1) has changed place and several extents has
> another sizes. But nature of the extents' sequence is the same.

The change which Andreas was referring to --- taking out the bias
against opening up uninitialized block groups for allocations until
absolutely necessary, which had a tendency to cause unnecessary
fragmentation --- was merged into mainline between 2.6.30 and 2.6.31.

Best regards,

						- Ted


      reply	other threads:[~2009-12-23 12:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-22 10:42 About strange behaviour of ext4 allocation algorithm Vyacheslav Dubeyko
2009-12-22 22:24 ` Andreas Dilger
2009-12-23 10:52   ` Vyacheslav Dubeyko
2009-12-23 12:07     ` tytso [this message]

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=20091223120751.GA21594@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=Vyacheslav.Dubeyko@acronis.com \
    --cc=adilger@sun.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).