From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751504AbWFJMQS (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:16:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751503AbWFJMQS (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:16:18 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:24803 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751493AbWFJMQR (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:16:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:15:36 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Jeff Garzik Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Andrew Morton , Matthew Frost , "ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , Mingming Cao , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3 Message-ID: <20060610121536.GA7300@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Jeff Garzik , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Andrew Morton , Matthew Frost , "ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , Mingming Cao , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas References: <1149890138.5776.114.camel@sisko.sctweedie.blueyonder.co.uk> <448A07EC.6000409@garzik.org> <20060610004727.GC7749@thunk.org> <448A1BBA.1030103@garzik.org> <20060610013048.GS5964@schatzie.adilger.int> <448A23B2.5080004@garzik.org> <20060610020306.GA449@thunk.org> <448A2A6F.8020301@garzik.org> <20060610025424.GA8536@thunk.org> <448A3863.3060906@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <448A3863.3060906@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:11:31PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > It's an example of ext2 being bandaided to do something it was never > originally designed to do. If online resizing had been planned from the > start, allocating new inode tables on the fly would be trivial, as it is > in JFS/NTFS/... And once again this has *nothing* to do with inode allocation, or dynamic allocation of inode tables. Your "performance issue" has to do with a difference in blocksizes. If you ext2/3 to pass your silly test, then upgrade to the latest e2fsprogs and install the following /etc/mke2fs.conf: [defaults] base_features = sparse_super,filetype,resize_inode,dir_index blocksize = 4096 inode_ratio = 8192 [fs_types] small = { blocksize = 4096 inode_ratio = 8192 } floppy = { blocksize = 4096 inode_ratio = 8192 } Happy now? - Ted