From: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Phillip Susi <phillsusi@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@whamcloud.com>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@gmail.com>,
"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:33:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120313213304.GB11969@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F5FAC9C.9070607@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:22:52PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> I think a format change would be preferable to runtime sorting.
Are you volunteering to spearhead the design and coding of such a
thing? Run-time sorting is backwards compatible, and a heck of a lot
easier to code and test...
The reality is we'd probably want to implement run-time sorting
*anyway*, for the vast majority of people who don't want to convert to
a new incompatible file system format. (Even if you can do the
conversion using e2fsck --- which is possible, but it would be even
more code to write --- system administrators tend to be very
conservative about such things, since they might need to boot an older
kernel, or use a rescue CD that doesn't have an uptodate kernel or
file system utilities, etc.)
> So the index nodes contain the hash ranges for the leaf block, but
> the leaf block only contains the regular directory entries, not a
> hash for each name? That would mean that adding or removing names
> would require moving around the regular directory entries wouldn't
> it?
They aren't sorted in the leaf block, so we only need to move around
regular directory entries when we do a node split (and at the moment
we don't support shrinking directories), so we don't have to worry the
reverse case.
> I would think that hash collisions are rare enough that reading a
> directory block you end up not needing once in a blue moon would be
> chalked up under "who cares". So just stick with hash, offset pairs
> to map the hash to the normal directory entry.
With a 64-bit hash, and if we were actually going to implement this as
a new incompatible feature, you're probably right in terms of
accepting the extra directory block search.
We would still have to implement the case where hash collisions *do*
exist, though, and make sure the right thing happens in that case.
Even if the chance of that happening is 1 in 2**32, with enough
deployed systems (i.e., every Android handset, etc.) it's going to
happen in real life.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-13 21:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-29 13:52 getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 13:55 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 14:07 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 14:21 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 14:42 ` Chris Mason
2012-02-29 14:55 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 13:35 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 13:50 ` Hillf Danton
2012-03-01 14:03 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 14:18 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-01 14:43 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 14:51 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-01 14:57 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 18:42 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-02 9:51 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-01 4:44 ` Theodore Tso
2012-03-01 14:38 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-02 10:05 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-02 14:00 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-02 14:16 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-02 14:26 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-02 19:32 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-02 19:50 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-05 13:10 ` Jan Kara
2012-03-03 22:41 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-04 10:25 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-05 11:32 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-06 0:37 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-08 17:02 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-09 11:29 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-09 14:34 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-10 0:09 ` Andreas Dilger
2012-03-10 4:48 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-11 10:30 ` Andreas Dilger
2012-03-11 16:13 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-15 10:42 ` Jacek Luczak
2012-03-18 20:56 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-13 19:05 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-13 19:53 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-13 20:22 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-13 21:33 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
2012-03-14 2:48 ` Yongqiang Yang
2012-03-14 2:51 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 14:17 ` Zach Brown
2012-03-14 16:48 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 17:37 ` Zach Brown
2012-03-14 8:12 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-14 9:29 ` Yongqiang Yang
2012-03-14 9:38 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-14 12:50 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 14:34 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-14 17:02 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-14 19:17 ` Chris Mason
2012-03-14 14:28 ` Phillip Susi
2012-03-14 16:54 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-10 3:52 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-03-15 7:59 ` Jacek Luczak
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-02-29 13:31 Jacek Luczak
2012-02-29 13:51 ` Chris Mason
2012-02-29 14:00 ` Lukas Czerner
2012-02-29 14:05 ` Chris Mason
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120313213304.GB11969@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=adilger@whamcloud.com \
--cc=difrost.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillsusi@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox