[snip] >> =========================== >> >> And I think that's all. As you can see I didn't want to go much into >> the open technical questions (I think the on-disk format would be the >> main one), the first goal should be to decide whether this is still an >> interesting feature or not. >> >> So, any questions or comments will be much appreciated. > It does like very interesting to me at least for small subcluster sizes. > > For the larger ones, I suspect that the Virtuozzo guys might be > interested in performing more benchmarks to see whether it improves the > fragmentation problems that they have talked about a lot. It might end > up being interesting for these cases, too. > > Kevin There is no difference in terms of data continuity if the space under the whole cluster is allocated with fallocate() as noted by Berto.
For large sizes I have posted different use case but with slightly different constraints. Subcluster option could be interesting in terms of random IO on big disks even after the allocation. But can we get a link to the repo with actual version of patches. Den
