[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs)
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Taylor <> wrote:
> Just an FYI reminder.  The original test (2K files) is utterly
> pathological for disk drives with 4K physical sectors, such as
> those now shipping from WD, Seagate, and others.  Some of the
> SSDs have larger (16K0 or smaller blocks (2K).  There is also
> the issue of btrfs over RAID (which I know is not entirely
> sensible, but which will happen).
> The absolute minimum allocation size for data should be the same
> as, and aligned with, the underlying disk block size.  If that
> results in underutilization, I think that's a good thing for
> performance, compared to read-modify-write cycles to update
> partial disk blocks.

Block size = 4k

Btrfs packs smaller objects into the blocks in certain cases.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-24 06:53    [W:0.107 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site