On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:27:49AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org>
wrote:
> > In the end, I might settle with -s64, and currently do tests with -s90.
>
> Got it. But why -s90? :)
He :) It's a nothing-special number between 64 and 128, that's all.
> I just pushed the patches to master branch in f2fs-tools.git.
> Could you pull them and check them?
Got them, last patch was the "check sit types" change.
> I added one more patch to avoid harmless sit_type fixes previously you
> reported.
>
> And, for the 8TB case, let me check again. It seems that we need to handle
> under
> 1% overprovision ratio. (e.g., 0.5%)
That might make me potentially very happy. But my main concern at the
moment is stability - even when you have a backup, restoring 8TB will take
days, and backups are never uptodate.
It would be nice to be able to control it more from the user side though.
For example, I have not yet reached 0.0% free with f2fs. That's fine, I don't
plan9 to, but I need to know at which percentage should I stop, which is
something I can only really find out with experiments.
And just filling these 8TB disks takes days, so the question is, can I
simulate near-full behaviour with smaller partitions.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
