Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> writes: > On 03/04/2016 02:01 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> OK. I'm still of the opinion that we should try to make this >> transparent. I could be swayed by workload descriptions and numbers >> comparing approaches, though. > > You can't just waive that flag and not have a solution. Any solution > in that space would imply having policy in the kernel. A "just use a > stream per file" is never going to work. Jens, I'm obviously missing a lot of the background information, here. I want to stress that I'm not against your patches. I'm just trying to understand if there's a sensible way to use the write stream support in the kernel so that applcations don't /have/ to be converted. It sounds like that's hard, and without any specs or hardware, I'm not going to be able to even try to come up with solutions to that problem. I think it would make for interesting research, though. I recall a paper from one of the USENIX conferences that dealt with automatically identifying write streams on a network storage server, but alas, I can't find the reference right now. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
