[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Transparent compression in the FS
Christopher Li wrote:
>>The idea of this sort of block level hashing to allow
>>sharing of identical blocks seems attractive but i wouldn't
>>trust any design that did not accept as given that there
>>would be false positives. This means that a write would
>>have to not only hash the block but then if there is a
>>collision do a compare of the raw data. Then you have to
>>add the overhead of having lists of blocks that match a hash
>>value and reference counts for each block itself. Further,
> Then write every data block will need to dirty at least 2 blocks.
> And it also need to read back the original block if hash exist.
> There must be some performance hit.

In my case at least, we're talking about archival storage. Plan9 uses a
"write buffer" of 1-2GB or so, to mitigate performance loss, which seems
reasonable. With archival storage and hash indexes and such, you're
certainly going to be dirtying more disk blocks than a traditional local
filesystem would.


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: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.141 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site