Re: mkfs.ext4 vs. e2fsck discard oddities

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Feb 29, 2012, at 2:12 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> 
> The reason is (as I commented in the patch #2) that we will not discard
> BLOCK_UNINIT groups. We use BLOCK_UNINIT as a optimization measure to
> skip groups which are likely to be non-provisioned, because we have
> never written there anything since the mkfs.
> 
> If you create file system without discard, then obviously nothing is
> discarded, image is fully provisioned and e2fsck discard *only* initialized
> groups. So you'll end up with the bigger image, in case that your image was
> not sparse.

i still think it makes sense to have an option where we discard everything
including BLOCK_UNINIT blocks.   Mke2fs doesn't discard blocks by default
because of a fear of crappy SSD drives, and while that fear may be
overstated, assuming that all of the unused blocks will *always* have been
discarded at mkfs time isn't necessarily a good thing to assume.   I'll grant
that it might be a fine default, but there needs to be *some* way to discard
everything that's unused….

-- 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


[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux