> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:39:50AM -0400, Luis Useche wrote: > With the current GC implementation, I am unable to do my experiment. I set > "protection_period 0" but still have the problem. Besides, this is > probably not the right solution either since the GC can do unnecessary work > that can underestimate the potential of nilfs. I need the first option (1) > from the first paragraph above. >
For this situation, would it be possible instead, to have to GC collect all the space that can be freed, have the filesystem informed of what blocks can be freed anytime (like a memory cache which can be flushed anytime), and have the FS give the free space information for what it calculated as removable? So with this we could have checkpoint for longuer than the protection_period and still have the free space available for thing the filesystem can just overwrite. I really don't know how it is coded as I'm just a user for now, but that would be even greater. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Reinoud Zandijk <[email protected]>wrote: > > idealiter there should be an analog to VMS's purge command, say purge_nilfs > or > `nilfs purge /mnt' that flushes all data not protected by a snapshot or the > last checkpoint. That would be a great alternative thinking of the current state of the project, if it's possible to tell the GC to flush all non protected data 'right now'.
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
