[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:0.022 / U:199.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site