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 mea
NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, February 14, 2008 8:32 am, Peter Staubach wrote:
I don't think that this is quite true. If the file is changed
when the NFS server is not running, then the value of i_version
which is used when the NFS server starts up again must be
different than the value which was
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 measured
the cost?
Few month
On Thu, February 14, 2008 8:32 am, Peter Staubach wrote:
>
> I don't think that this is quite true. If the file is changed
> when the NFS server is not running, then the value of i_version
> which is used when the NFS server starts up again must be
> different than the value which was previously u
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:19:19AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, February 14, 2008 7:26 am, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > It's not OK to update it only sometimes. If updates are made while nfsd
> > isn't running, those needed to be reflected in the change attribute, so
> > the changes aren't m
NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, February 14, 2008 7:26 am, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
It's not OK to update it only sometimes. If updates are made while nfsd
isn't running, those needed to be reflected in the change attribute, so
the changes aren't missed when nfsd comes back up.
For NFSD's nee
On Thu, February 14, 2008 7:26 am, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> It's not OK to update it only sometimes. If updates are made while nfsd
> isn't running, those needed to be reflected in the change attribute, so
> the changes aren't missed when nfsd comes back up.
For NFSD's needs, it is only necessar
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:52:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:06:25PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > First there's a complete lack of documentation on this, which is very
> > > bad. Please document what the new semantics for i_version on regular
> > > files a
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 mo
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 includ ext4 in that here) have 64bit
> timest
r to
> use ctime or i_version as the change attribute.
Probably through export_operations somehow. Andreas mentioned in the
other reply that he wants it only conditionally due to the overhead
on extN, and enabling this from an export operation called when nfs
exporting a filesystem.
Btw, stupid
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)
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 t
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 for i_version on regular
files are supposed to be, and how it differes fro
15 matches
Mail list logo