From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [Tux3] Tux3 report: Tux3 Git tree available Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:38:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20090316063830.GC6357@mit.edu> References: <200903110925.37614.phillips@phunq.net> <200903130004.40483.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <200903141941.10030.phillips@phunq.net> <200903151445.04552.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090315214426.GA6357@mit.edu> <20090316051211.GB26138@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Nick Piggin , Daniel Phillips , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tux3@tux3.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vge Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:35586 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751200AbZCPGit (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:38:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090316051211.GB26138@disturbed> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dave, It wasn't my intention to say that XFS was bad; in fact, I thought I was actually complementing XFS by talking about some of the advanced features that XFS had (many of which I have always said that ext3 has, and some of which ext4 still does not have, and probably never will have). I stand corrected on some of the details that I got wrong. What I was trying to say was that *if* (and perhaps I'm misunderstanding fsblock) that fsblock is requiring that as soon as a page is dirty, fsblock requests the filesystem to assign a block allocation to the buffers attached to the dirty page, that this would spike out delayed allocation, which would be unfortunate for *both* ext4 and XFS. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what fsblock is doing, and there isn't a problem here. Regards, - Ted