From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o0EHfS5m020830 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:41:28 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A3DDF166587 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:42:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id aTGFwY2YFgwDQZOU for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:42:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B4F5773.8050409@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:42:11 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: allocsize mount option References: <264613.60659.qm@web76207.mail.sg1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <264613.60659.qm@web76207.mail.sg1.yahoo.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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Gim Leong Chin Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Gim Leong Chin wrote: > Hi Dave, > > >> fragmented, it just means that that there are 19% more fragments >> than the ideal. In 4TB of data with 1GB sized files, that would >> mean there are 4800 extents (average length ~800MB, which is >> excellent) instead of the perfect 4000 extents (@1GB each). Hence >> you can see how misleading this "19% fragmentation" number can be >> on an extent based filesystem... > > There are many files that are 128 GB. > > When I did the tests with dd on this computer, the 20 GB files had up > to > 50 extents. which is at least 400mb per extent, which is really not so bad. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs