Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 05 Nov 2001 13:39:35 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [Ext2-devel] disk throughput |
| |
m@mo.optusnet.com.au wrote: > > Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolabs.com> writes: > > On Nov 05, 2001 00:04 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > [..] > > > With the ialloc.c change, plus the other changes I mentioned > > > the time to create all these directories and files and then run > > > /bin/sync fell from 1:53 to 0:28. Fourfold. > > > > In the end, though, while the old heuristic has a good theory, it _may_ > > be that in practise, you are _always_ seeking to get data from different > > groups, rather than _theoretically_ seeking because of fragmented files. > > I don't know what the answer is - probably depends on finding "valid" > > benchmarks (cough). > > Another heuristic to try make be to only use a different blockgroup > for when the mkdir()s are seperate in time. i.e. rather than > doing > if ( 0 && .. > use something like > if ((last_time + 100) < jiffes && ... > last_time = jiffies; > which would in theory use the old behaviour for sparodic mkdirs > and the new behaviour for things like 'untar' et al. >
I agree - that's a pretty sane heuristic.
It would allow us to preserve the existing semantics for the slowly-accreting case. If they're still valid. - 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/
|  |