From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:15:36 -0400
Message-ID: <20060610121536.GA7300@thunk.org>
References: <1149890138.5776.114.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk>
	<448A07EC.6000409@garzik.org> <20060610004727.GC7749@thunk.org>
	<448A1BBA.1030103@garzik.org>
	<20060610013048.GS5964@schatzie.adilger.int>
	<448A23B2.5080004@garzik.org> <20060610020306.GA449@thunk.org>
	<448A2A6F.8020301@garzik.org> <20060610025424.GA8536@thunk.org>
	<448A3863.3060906@garzik.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Matthew Frost <artusemrys@sbcglobal.net>,
	"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>,
	"ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas <alex@clusterfs.com>
Return-path: <ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <448A3863.3060906@garzik.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=ext2-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ext2-devel>,
	<mailto:ext2-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: ext2-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:11:31PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It's an example of ext2 being bandaided to do something it was never 
> originally designed to do.  If online resizing had been planned from the 
> start, allocating new inode tables on the fly would be trivial, as it is 
> in JFS/NTFS/...

And once again this has *nothing* to do with inode allocation, or
dynamic allocation of inode tables.  Your "performance issue" has to
do with a difference in blocksizes.  If you ext2/3 to pass your silly
test, then upgrade to the latest e2fsprogs and install the following
/etc/mke2fs.conf:

[defaults]
	base_features = sparse_super,filetype,resize_inode,dir_index
	blocksize = 4096
	inode_ratio = 8192

[fs_types]
	small = {
		blocksize = 4096
		inode_ratio = 8192
	}
	floppy = {
		blocksize = 4096
		inode_ratio = 8192
	}

Happy now?

						- Ted