From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Tomas Subject: Re: Large File Deletion Comparison (ext3, ext4, XFS) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:48:30 +0400 Message-ID: <4632619E.4080208@clusterfs.com> References: <4631FD7F.9030008@bull.net> <20070427203821.GJ5967@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Valerie Clement , ext4 development To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mail.chehov.net ([80.71.245.247]:63743 "EHLO mail.rialcom.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757228AbXD0Us5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:48:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070427203821.GJ5967@schatzie.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Andreas Dilger wrote: > Ah, one thing that is only mentioned in the URL is that the "IO count" is > in units of 512-byte sectors. In the case of XFS doing logical journaling > this avoids a huge amount of double writes to the journal and then to the > filesystem. I still think ext4 could do better than it currently does. I thought about this in context of huge directories when working set of blocks is very large and it doesn't fit journal causing frequent commits. two ideas I was thinking of are: 1) journal "change" where possible 2) compress whole transaction to be written in the journal thanks, Alex