lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
    On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:08:10AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
    > > The right place is clearly Samba. I can't think of any other program
    > > or filesystem protocol where writing a 1 byte write at 128k strides
    > > would be used to signal a desire to do preallocation. In fact, it's
    > > hard to think of a worse way of doing things.
    >
    > In fact they don't need to do this - there's an explicit CIFS
    > set file allocation call to pre-allocate size they could use.
    >
    > There's a specific Samba VFS module that has XFS specific calls
    > to do this - vfs_prealloc. - but this won't work on ext3.

    Jeremy,

    FYI, we are currently closing on a new system call so that
    glibc's fallocate() will be able to call into the appropriate
    per-filesystem routines in a portable way, since ext4 will have
    persistent preallocation support.

    I think we mostly have consensus on a calling convention which
    all of the architectures (s390, power, arm, ia64, etc.); of course
    then we will need to get glibc to support the new system call.

    - Ted

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-02 21:39    [W:0.031 / U:60.480 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site