From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF2B7CA6 for ; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:06:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55961304039 for ; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id trqTmPxby6FDGKJs (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 08:06:28 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_db: defang frag command Message-ID: <20160523150628.GA27209@infradead.org> References: <2d21b9ba-6db7-e239-3be8-a7bd5e1c39cc@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2d21b9ba-6db7-e239-3be8-a7bd5e1c39cc@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:41:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Too many people freak out about this fictitious "fragmentation > factor." As shown in the fact, it is largely meaningless, because > the number approaches 100% extremely quickly for just a few > extents per file. > > I thought about removing it altogether, but perhaps a note > about its uselessness, and a more soothing metric (avg extents > per file) might be useful. Heh. Looks reasonable: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs