On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:01:29PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> >> This also reminds me of my previous flex_bg patch: >> [PATCH][RFC] mke2fs: handle flex_bg collision with backup descriptors >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/42298 >> >> which fixes the "bmap-imap-itable-bmap-imap-itable" problem when a large >> flex_bg size is used. Sadly, there were no comments on that patch. > > I had wondered if you were planning to address the FIXMEs in the patch, but > then forgot to ever follow up... :/ Well, I was thinking that the patch was good enough to land as-is. It fixes 99% the problem for flex_bg size up to 65536, but only 95% of the groups for flex_bg of 131072. I guess I'll send it out again without [RFC], and if people start using flex_bg >= 131072 (which is enough for all the metadata in a 16TB chunk) then we can work out the final details. I suspect that the sparse_super2 feature would probably become more prevalent and avoid this problem entirely. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
