On 10/30/07, Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 12:35 +0000, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>
> > >
> > > That is on a directory that the ordinary 'copy' could not defragment
> > > more. I had a little trouble aligning buffers and writing files whose
> > > length was not a multiple of the required alignment.
> >
> > I didn't think about those limitations when I suggested it, but that is
> > something you need to be careful about. Allocating the buffers with
> > posix_memalign() should take care of the first concern.
>
> As far as the file length, you could pad the file to the next full
> block, then truncate it to the correct size.
>
Thanks for the tip. I use a 128Mb statically allocated buffer that is
reused. The file is written to the next block (512b) boundry and then
truncated.Seems to work quite well.
The code is available from http://sourceforge.net/projects/freede/. It
requires boost-1.34. I'll try to figure out how to do a statically linked
binary.
It works very well for me. I have not lost any files (yet). It checks for
md5sums before and after the rewrite to se if the file was rewritten OK. Do
NOT use on directories where files are read from or written to! There is no
file locking implemented yet.
It currently only tries to minimize the number of fragments per file. It
does not defragment directories. There was a quite interesting suggestion on
how to do defrag directories in the thread "jfs tunning", i'll look into
that next.
Best regards,
Simon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
