From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l92NffT6001821 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:41:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:41:27 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: REVIEW: xfs_reno Message-ID: <20071002234126.GH23367404@sgi.com> References: <20071002090216.GA22721@infradead.org> <20071002091951.GE995458@sgi.com> <470274BF.7070702@thebarn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470274BF.7070702@thebarn.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Russell Cattelan Cc: David Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , Barry Naujok , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , xfs-dev On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:41:35AM -0500, Russell Cattelan wrote: > >At that point, we'll got a "working" shrink that will allow > >shrinking to only 50% of the original size because the log will > >get in the way. To fix that, we'll need to implement transactions > >to move the log... > > If we do that could be move to an inode based log? What do we gain from doing that? (I'm a bit slow today) > Keep it contagious so recovery won't have to parse > up the file system to find the log. I'm worried by those contagious logs. What do you catch from them? :) > The normal running case should be easier to deal with if > the log was just a file? I don't see how it changes anything - we address the log directly by block number and device... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group