From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B829DF8 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 17:40:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DBCAC00A for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IlMBr9Jnoe0Ea3Ar for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 15:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:40:33 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] xfsprogs: introduce the free inode btree Message-ID: <20140526224033.GP18954@dastard> References: <1399465319-65066-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1399465319-65066-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:21:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > Hi all, > > Here's v4 of the finobt series for xfsprogs. Patches 1-10 are unchanged > as they are based on the corresponding kernel patches, which have now > been merged. > > v4 includes some fairly isolated fixes for mkfs and repair based on > review feedback for v3: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-04/msg00239.html > > Some concern was raised over xfs_repair performance based on the > implementation of patch 17 in v3, so I have run a few repair tests on > largish filesystems. Tests involved creating a large number of inodes on > a 1TB 4xraid0, freeing a random percentage to populate the finobt and > running xfs_repair (e.g., no actual corruptions). xfs_repair was run > normally (with these patches) and with a change to skip the finobt > processing via an xfs_sb_version_hasfinobt() hack. The tests were run on > a 16xcpu, 32GB RAM server. I still have some concerns about this simply based on the algorithm and that it will come back an bite us eventually, but for the moment I think you've done enough to show that it's not going to an immediate issue. I haven't seen anything else that needs fixing or causes problems, so I'm going to merge it for 3.2.1. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs