Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:37:17 -0600 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Clustering indirect blocks in Ext3 |
| |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:02:46 -0800 "Abhishek Rai" <abhishekrai@google.com> wrote: ... > > 3. e2fsck speedup with metaclustering varies from disk > > to disk with most benefit coming from disks which have a large number > > of indirect blocks. For disks which have few indirect blocks, fsck > > usually doesn't take too long anyway and hence it's OK not to deliver > > a huge speedup there. But in all cases, metaclustering doesn't cause > > any degradation in IO performance as seen in the benchmarks above. > > Less speedup, for more-and-smaller files, it appears. > > An important question is: how does it stand up over time? Simply laying > files out a single time on a fresh fs is the easy case. But what happens > if that disk has been in continuous create/delete/truncate/append usage for > six months?
Try Chris Mason's compilebench, which is a decent aging simulation.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |