From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.firstfloor.org (one.firstfloor.org [213.235.205.2]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l5T8wjtL008178 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:58:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:58:46 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks Message-ID: <20070629085846.GD14519@one.firstfloor.org> References: <4683ADF5.9050901@corky.net> <1183075929.15488.148.camel@edge.yarra.acx> <4684A728.1050405@corky.net> <20070629081357.GC14519@one.firstfloor.org> <4684C168.2050605@corky.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4684C168.2050605@corky.net> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Just Marc Cc: Andi Kleen , nscott@aconex.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 09:23:04AM +0100, Just Marc wrote: > You might have hit the > nail on the head, some of the files it was not able to improve are on > filesystems that are almost full. Don't do that then. It's probably the reason you get the bad fragmentation in the first place. Most file systems perform very poorly when they are nearly full. -Andi