On 5/19/07, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 18:36 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
The reason why i am asking this is to understand the
usefulness of doing a ext4migrate followed by defrag.
[...]
Also looking at the version 0.4 I see that defrag ioctl only work if we
have
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:42:17PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This I/O manager helps in stacking different I/O managers.
For example one can stack the undo I/O manager on top
of Unix I/O manager to achieve the undo
Hi Aneesh san,
While doing online defragmentation do we move the blocks corresponding to extent index ?
The reason why i am asking this is to understand the
usefulness of doing a ext4migrate followed by defrag. I understand that defragmentation
in general will improve the performance. But with
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:11 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
But me (and several other people
independently as I've learnt recently) have written some tools which
should result in something useful. If you're interested, you can join
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - it's led by one guy who is doing
defrag and
Hello,
While doing online defragmentation do we move the blocks corresponding to
extent index ? The reason why i am asking this is to understand the
usefulness of doing a ext4migrate followed by defrag. I understand that
defragmentation in general will improve the performance. But with
Takashi Sato wrote:
Hi Aneesh san,
In my opinion, to keep the ioctl simple and small is very important
for ease of maintenance. So I would rather not support indirect
block files in the ioctl.
Instead, I can add the call of the migration ioctl to my defrag tool in
order
to defragment
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 12:38 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
Yes. On the other hand I believe that some people would like to use
defragmentation but stay with ext3. For them conversion to extents is
no-go.
[...]
I've written a patch that defragments non-extent files but after
discussion with XFS
Hi,
I'm getting strange results when I map out the blocks used in files
larger than a several thousand KB. I never seem to get any more than
1024 contiguous data blocks in a row.
Here's a portion of the output of my script when I run it on a 176MB
file in my home directory:
...
Contiguous chunk
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:57:26PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Can't we address the FIXME by calling the respective close routine in
the failure case.
You can but it doesn't address the biggest problem, which is if you're
going to add all of this extra complexity, we might as well deal with
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 06:49 -0700, Eric wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting strange results when I map out the blocks used in files
larger than a several thousand KB. I never seem to get any more than
1024 contiguous data blocks in a row.
Here's a portion of the output of my script when I run it on a
10 matches
Mail list logo
