Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance

Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> Conceivably we could address this in the filesystem without mucking other
> things up.  But I'd have thought the simplest damage-control would be to
> detect this pattern in samba and to then use glibc's fallocate().

The advantage of detecting it in kernel would be that it would handle
Linux applications that do this (I suspect there are some) too.

-Andi
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
    • From: Theodore Tso <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Ext3 vs NTFS performance
    • From: "Cabot, Mason B" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
• Next by Date: [PATCH -utrace] Move utrace into task_struct
• Previous by thread: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
• Next by thread: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]