lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.166 / U:11.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site