On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:18:47AM -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote:
> > @@ -1638,6 +1654,19 @@ static void PRS(int argc, char *argv[])
> >
> > if (inode_size == 0)
> > inode_size = get_int_from_profile(fs_types, "inode_size", 0);
> > + if (!flex_bg_size && (fs_param.s_feature_incompat &
> > + EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_FLEX_BG))
> > + get_int_from_profile(fs_types, "flex_bg_size", 8);
>
> A default of 256 block groups to pack seems a bit high base on some of
> the performance testing that I've done. At some point having the inodes
> too far away from the data blocks begins to affect performance
> (especially on read operations). The optimum number of groups depends
> a lot on platter density of the hard drive so I expect that we can
> increase the default grouping size as time goes by. Using 128 groups
> as already showing performance degradation on read operations on some
> of my smaller disks (147GB). For now, I would change this to 6 (64
> groups) as this is a good balance for both big an small disks.
Actually this is 8 (as in 2**3), which was intentionally very small,
because I was being conservative. I could change it to be 64 if you
think it is a better balance. As you can see, it gets set later on
down here.
> > + fs_param.s_log_groups_per_flex = int_log2(flex_bg_size);
And, in fact the biggest bug which both you and I missed was that this:
> > + get_int_from_profile(fs_types, "flex_bg_size", 8);
Should have been this:
flex_bg_size = get_int_from_profile(fs_types, "flex_bg_size", 8);
<Dons paper bag>
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
