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 o9K3270U012290 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0500 Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A854B105F6A for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from greer.hardwarefreak.com (mo-65-41-216-221.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.41.216.221]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id B24oAhsEMPBgKcj4 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.53] (gffx.hardwarefreak.com [192.168.100.53]) by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057AE6C126 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:03:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4CBE5BF7.1090001@hardwarefreak.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:03:19 -0500 From: Stan Hoeppner MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: avoid mbox file fragmentation References: <4CBE2403.8070108@hardwarefreak.com> <20101019234217.GD12506@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20101019234217.GD12506@dastard> 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: xfs@oss.sgi.com Dave Chinner put forth on 10/19/2010 6:42 PM: > I've explained how allocsize works, and that speculative allocation > gets truncated away whenteh file is closed. Hence is the application > is doing: > > open() > seek(EOF) > write() > close() I don't know if it changes anything in the sequence above, but Dovecot uses mmap i/o. As I've said, I'm not a dev. Just thought this could/might be relevant. Would using mmap be compatible with physical preallocation? -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs