From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Tomas Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] Reviewing ext3 improvement patches (delalloc, mballoc, extents) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:30:36 +0300 Message-ID: <20050304143036.1da01187.alex@clusterfs.com> References: <20050303083349.GA4896@in.ibm.com> <1109898734.4961.11.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: suparna@in.ibm.com, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, alex@clusterfs.com Received: from [83.102.214.158] ([83.102.214.158]:4044 "EHLO gw.home.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262876AbVCDLca (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:32:30 -0500 To: Badari Pulavarty In-Reply-To: <1109898734.4961.11.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 03 Mar 2005 17:12:14 -0800 Badari Pulavarty wrote: > Just doing delayed allocation without multiblock allocation > (with the current layout) is not really a useful thing, IMHO. > We will benifit few cases, but in general - we moved the > block allocation overhead from prepare write to writepages/writepage > time. There is a little benifit of not doing journaling twice etc.. > but I don't think it would be enough to justify the effort. > Isn't it ? one more goodness - if file gets truncated soon, no allocation is needed at all > One more thing, we need to keep in mind is - we need to make sure > that "ordered" mode also improved - since all our testcode > focuses on "writeback" mode and the default mode is "ordered" :( working on that. thanks, Alex