On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:02:12AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I'm right with you on thinking a mount option should be a last resort. > > One thing I'm curious about - what changed from ext3 to ext4? I thought > both defaulted to orlov and the same type of allocation behavior, more > or less. I guess one change is that the "oldalloc" mount > option went away. > (if it does come back, it should probably mirror what we had before, > which was "oldalloc" not "noorlov" right?) The behaviour I'm looking for is not exactly the same as the orlov allocator or the old allocator, but something that packs files as closely together as possible. Half of this can be achieved with fallocate(), but reducing the spreading of directory inodes can only be accomplished with changes to the filesystem itself. The only reason we're using multiple subdirectories is because of contention issues with i_mutex (our application has to either fsync() the directory or mount with dirsync to maintain consistency) during file creation and unlink(). -ben -- "Thought is the essence of where you are now." -- 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
