On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 13:21 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Apr 04, 2007 19:06 +0200, Cordenner jean noel wrote: > > here is the first results of the round: > > http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070404/ > > Jean Noel, > thank you for the test results. It is always nice to see that ext4 is > doing so well compared to ext3 and XFS. > > Ming Ming, > it should be possible to just include the mballoc+delalloc patches that > Jean Noel used into the upstream ext4 patch series. When Alex or Christoph > get a chance to do the VFS delalloc rewrite we can move to that new patch, > but until then it seems pointless to not include this functionality which > improves the performance so much. > >From the bull website it said the test is based on 2.6.21-rc4 kernel + delalloc patch. I don't think that includes the mballoc patch.
> Also, if we include those patches the mballoc and delalloc features (along > with extents) should be enabled by default if INCOMPAT_EXTENTS is in the > superblock unless: > - "noextents", "nomballoc", or "nodelalloc" mount options are given I just added noextents and nodelalloc mount options in the 2.6.21-rc5 version ext4 patch queue. But we should keep delalloc with nomballoc. The current delalloc patch in ext4 tree plays well without mballoc. We still could do multiple block allocations with delayed allocation, though not as smart as Alex's mballoc. > - delalloc needs to be disabled if blocksize != PAGE_SIZE > I believe the current ext4 delalloc code turns off delalloc in this case already. > Cheers, Andreas > -- > Andreas Dilger > Principal Software Engineer > Cluster File Systems, Inc. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
