Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

Theodore Tso
2006-06-10T12:16:18Z

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