From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: i_version changes Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:38:03 -0500 Message-ID: <47B4524B.7040008@redhat.com> References: <20080210073041.GA23529@lst.de> <20080212200625.GE18625@fieldses.org> <20080213125214.GA12362@lst.de> <20080213202611.GM13462@fieldses.org> <43290.192.168.1.70.1202937559.squirrel@neil.brown.name> <47B361D8.1070708@redhat.com> <47B3FE62.80106@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: NeilBrown , "J. Bruce Fields" , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jean noel Cordenner Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:58430 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233AbYBNOik (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:38:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47B3FE62.80106@bull.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jean noel Cordenner wrote: > hi, > > Peter Staubach a =E9crit : >> >> Is the perceived performance hit really going to be as large >> as suspected? We already update the time fields fairly often >> and we don't pay a huge penalty for those, or at least not a >> penalty that we aren't willing to pay. Has anyone measured >> the cost? > > Few month ago, I ran a FFSB test on a 2.6.23 kernel enabling or not=20 > the i_version flag. > http://bullopensource.org/ext4/20071116/ffsb-write.html This is good information. A couple of questions -- what is the "-I 256" option used for the ext4 mkfs? What was the variance between the results of the 5 runs? Is 2% significant or not? Thanx... ps - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html