Peter Staubach a écrit :
Few month ago, I ran a FFSB test on a 2.6.23 kernel enabling or not
the i_version flag.
http://bullopensource.org/ext4/20071116/ffsb-write.html
This is good information.
A couple of questions -- what is the -I 256 option used for the ext4
mkfs?
This option force
Jean noel Cordenner wrote:
hi,
Peter Staubach a écrit :
Is the perceived performance hit really going to be as large
as suspected? We already update the time fields fairly often
and we don't pay a huge penalty for those, or at least not a
penalty that we aren't willing to pay. Has anyone
On Feb 12, 2008 15:06 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:30:41AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Third using the MS_ flag but then actually having a filesystem
mount option to enable it is more than confusing. After all MS_
options (at least the exported parts) are
this from an export operation called when nfs
exporting a filesystem.
Btw, stupid question: the commit message for the i_version changes
mentions this is to work around lack of granularity for ctime updates.
But all modern filesystems (and I includ ext4 in that here) have 64bit
timestamps already, so
On Feb 13, 2008 09:07 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 13:52 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Btw, stupid question: the commit message for the i_version changes
mentions this is to work around lack of granularity for ctime updates.
But all modern filesystems (and I
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:30:41AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I think the i_version changes that hit mainline about a week ago are
not as nice as they should be.
First there's a complete lack of documentation on this, which is very
bad. Please document what the new semantics
