From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Theodore Ts'o" Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:15:33 +0000 Subject: Re: EXT2_MAX_BLOCK_LOG_SIZE increase? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:51:33AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:21:02PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I'd be interested in benchmark runs comparing 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, and > > 64k, if you would, please. > > vary kernel page size or ext2 block size or both together? Well, varying both, actually. I'm curious whether it is a large block size, or block_size = page_size that really matters. The reason why I care is because it makes a difference as to what the default mke2fs hueristics should be. (By the way, even without hacking e2fsprogs at all, if you use mke2fs -Tlargefile, it will use a default blocksize = pagesize, and this currently bypasses the EXT2_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE check entirely.) The question is whether or not this is really optimal behaviour.... It probably is, but it would be good to know for soon. > re-aim-7 benchmark or something different? > (and please don't say "dbench" :^) Dbench is a silly benchmark.... > 32k is not possible in the kernel. Could use 64k. > > Was any patches necessary for the ia64 kernel before the block sizes > > > 8k started working for you? > > nope. :^) > Just twiddle the CONFIG_IA64_PAGE_SIZE_* parameters if one wants 64KB. > 16KB is the default. Good to know, thanks. - Ted