Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:11:31PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It's an example of ext2 being bandaided to do something it was never 
> originally designed to do.  If online resizing had been planned from the 
> start, allocating new inode tables on the fly would be trivial, as it is 
> in JFS/NTFS/...

And once again this has *nothing* to do with inode allocation, or
dynamic allocation of inode tables.  Your "performance issue" has to
do with a difference in blocksizes.  If you ext2/3 to pass your silly
test, then upgrade to the latest e2fsprogs and install the following
/etc/mke2fs.conf:

[defaults]
	base_features = sparse_super,filetype,resize_inode,dir_index
	blocksize = 4096
	inode_ratio = 8192

[fs_types]
	small = {
		blocksize = 4096
		inode_ratio = 8192
	}
	floppy = {
		blocksize = 4096
		inode_ratio = 8192
	}

Happy now?

						- Ted
-
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/