On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 8:32 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:01:27PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
> > If fallocate() is not supported, posix_fallocate() falls back to
> > inefficient allocation, writing one byte for every 4k bytes[1]. This is
> > very slow compared with
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:01:27PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
> If fallocate() is not supported, posix_fallocate() falls back to
> inefficient allocation, writing one byte for every 4k bytes[1]. This is
> very slow compared with writing zeros. In oVirt we measured ~400%
> improvement in allocation
On Mon 31 Aug 2020 04:01:27 PM CEST, Nir Soffer wrote:
> If fallocate() is not supported, posix_fallocate() falls back to
> inefficient allocation, writing one byte for every 4k bytes[1]. This is
> very slow compared with writing zeros. In oVirt we measured ~400%
> improvement in allocation time
If fallocate() is not supported, posix_fallocate() falls back to
inefficient allocation, writing one byte for every 4k bytes[1]. This is
very slow compared with writing zeros. In oVirt we measured ~400%
improvement in allocation time when replacing posix_fallocate() with
manually writing
