From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ric Wheeler Subject: thin provisioned LUN support & file system allocation policy Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:26:49 -0500 Message-ID: <49145029.4040900@redhat.com> References: <4913028B.6010405@redhat.com> <1225984628.4703.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081107120534.GO21867@kernel.dk> <49143142.4010809@redhat.com> <20081107121934.GP21867@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:50958 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751676AbYKGO1e (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:27:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081107121934.GP21867@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe , Chris Mason , Theodore Tso , Dave Chinner Cc: David Woodhouse , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Black_David@emc.com, "Martin K. Petersen" , Tom Coughlan , Matthew Wilcox One more consideration that I should have mentioned is that we can also make our file system allocation policies "thin provisioned LUN" friendly. Basically, we need to try to re-allocate blocks instead of letting the allocations happily progress across the entire block range. This might be the inverse of an SSD friendly allocation policy, but would seem to be fairly trivial to implement :-) ric