From: Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@sgi.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, bpm@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Issues with delalloc->real extent allocation
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:45:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110120144503.GA7225@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110120013346.GO16267@dastard>
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:33:46PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
| Given that XFS is aimed towards optimising for the large file/large
| IO/high throughput type of application, I'm comfortable with saying
| that avoiding sub-page writes for optimal throughput IO is an
| application problem and going from there. Especially considering
| that stuff like rsync and untarring kernel tarballs are all
| appending writes so won't take any performance hit at all...
I agree. I do not expect systems with 64K pages to be used for single
bit manipulations. However, I do see a couple of potential problems.
The one place where page size I/O may not work though is for an DMAPI/HSM
(DMF) managed filesystem where some blocks are managed on near-line media.
The DMAPI needs to be able to remove and restore extents on a filesystem
block boundary, not a page boundary.
The other downside is that for sparse files, we could end up allocating
space for zero filled blocks. There may be some workloads where
significant quantities of space are wasted.
--
Geoffrey Wehrman
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-20 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-14 0:29 Issues with delalloc->real extent allocation Dave Chinner
2011-01-14 16:40 ` Geoffrey Wehrman
2011-01-14 22:59 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-15 4:16 ` Geoffrey Wehrman
2011-01-17 5:18 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-17 14:37 ` Geoffrey Wehrman
2011-01-18 0:24 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-18 14:30 ` Geoffrey Wehrman
2011-01-18 20:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-18 22:03 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-14 21:43 ` bpm
2011-01-14 23:32 ` bpm
2011-01-14 23:50 ` bpm
2011-01-14 23:55 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-17 20:12 ` bpm
2011-01-18 1:44 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-18 20:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-18 23:18 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-19 12:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-19 13:31 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-19 13:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-20 1:33 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-20 11:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-21 1:59 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-20 14:45 ` Geoffrey Wehrman [this message]
2011-01-21 2:51 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-21 14:41 ` Geoffrey Wehrman
2011-01-23 23:26 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-17 0:28 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2011-01-17 4:37 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110120144503.GA7225@sgi.com \
--to=gwehrman@sgi.com \
--cc=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox