From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:35:41 +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 05:15:33PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Well, varying both, actually. I'm curious whether it is a large block > size, or block_size = page_size that really matters. sorry - I'm not sure I understand the distinction. My take is a larger page size (ie 16k is better than 4k). It looks like ext2 uses PAGE_SIZE to size it's IOs: > The reason why I care is because it makes a difference as to what the > default mke2fs hueristics should be. My gut feeling is native page_size and then warn about compatibility if that is > 4k. > (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.... re-aim-7 seems to think so. I sent you privately the 4k and 16k pagesize runs that I had posted earlier. grant