Re: [patch] delayed disk block allocation

[Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:31:03PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Mar 03, 2002  21:04 -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 03:08:54AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > The main disconnect there is sub-page sized writes, you will bundle together
> > > young and old 1K buffers.  Since it's getting harder to find a 1K blocksize
> > > filesystem, we might not care.  
> > 
> > Please don't do that.
> > 
> > Hopefully, once this is in, 1k blocks will work much better.  There are many
> > cases where people work with lots of small files, and using 1k blocks is bad
> > enough, 4k would be worse.
> > 
> > Also, with dhash going into ext2/3 lots of tiny files in one dir will be
> > feasible and comparible with reiserfs.
> 
> Actually, there are a whole bunch of performance issues with 1kB block
> ext2 filesystems.  For very small files, you are probably better off
> to have tails in EAs stored with the inode, or with other tails/EAs in
> a shared block.  We discussed this on ext2-devel a few months ago, and
> while the current ext2 EA design is totally unsuitable for that, it
> isn't impossible to fix.

Great, we're finally heading tward dual sized blocks (or clusters or etc).
I'll be looking forward to that. :)

Do you think it'll look like block tails (like ffs?) or will it be more like
tail packing in reiserfs?