On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:02:46 -0800 "Abhishek Rai" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> > 3. e2fsck speedup with metaclustering varies from disk
> > to disk with most benefit coming from disks which have a large number
> > of indirect blocks. For disks which have few indirect blocks, fsck
> > usually doesn't take too long anyway and hence it's OK not to deliver
> > a huge speedup there. But in all cases, metaclustering doesn't cause
> > any degradation in IO performance as seen in the benchmarks above.
>
> Less speedup, for more-and-smaller files, it appears.
>
> An important question is: how does it stand up over time? Simply laying
> files out a single time on a fresh fs is the easy case. But what happens
> if that disk has been in continuous create/delete/truncate/append usage for
> six months?
Try Chris Mason's compilebench, which is a decent aging simulation.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
