Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:51:12 -0700 | Subject | Re: Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs) | From | Mike Fedyk <> |
| |
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Taylor <Daniel.Taylor@wdc.com> 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 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/
| |