On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:42:40AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:26 AM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 04:16:02PM -0600, adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The e2fsck error message: > >> > >> inode nnn extent tree (at level 1) could be narrower. Optimize<y>? > >> > >> can be fairly verbose at times, and leads users to think that there > >> may be something wrong with the filesystem. Basically, almost any > >> message printed by e2fsck makes users nervous when they are facing > >> other corruption, and a few thousand of these printed may hide other > >> errors. It also isn't clear that saving a few blocks optimizing the > >> extent tree noticeably improves performance. > >> > >> This message has previously been annoying enough for Ted to add the > >> "-E no_optimize_extents" option to disable it. Just enable this > >> option by default, similar to the "-D" directory optimization option. > > > > it seem counterproductive to me that we would disable usefull (even if > > just a little) optimization just because the way it is presented to the > > user is inconvenient. I agree that messages during e2fsck often raise > > alarms, as they should, but perfeps instead of disabling the feature we > > can figure out a way to make the messaging better ? > > > > Can we just not print the every message if the answer is going to be yes > > anyway, either because of -y, -p, <a> or whatever when the user is not > > involved in the decision anymore ? Maybe a log file can be created > > for the purpose of storing the full log of changes. Or perhaps we can > > print out a summary for each type of the problem and how many of the > > instaces of a particular problem have been optimized/fixed after the > > e2fsck is done pointing to that full log for details ? > > I think the standard way to handle this in e2fsck is with a "latch question", > so that after the first or second 'y' with "answer 'y' to all questions". > This will quiet most of the messages without disabling the optimization. This will still print the message right ? Or am I mistaken ? > > The other question is whether the "optimization" is worthwhile or not? > Since e2fsck is rarely run, a number of unoptimized files will exist in > the filesystem all the time. In our case at least, files have a turnover > rate, so optimizing the current set of inodes doesn't help much, since > they would likely be deleted in a few weeks and new files will replace them. I rarely see this and fundamentally I feel that any optimization we can make in the rare opportunity the e2fsck is run, is worth it. But you have a good point that it might not be all that helpful in some situations. I trust your judgement on which trade-off is ultimately better. If you decide to do it this way, you can add Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! -Lukas > > Cheers, Andreas > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> e2fsck/e2fsck.8.in | 4 ++-- > >> e2fsck/unix.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/e2fsck/e2fsck.8.in b/e2fsck/e2fsck.8.in > >> index 4e3890b..4f5086a 100644 > >> --- a/e2fsck/e2fsck.8.in > >> +++ b/e2fsck/e2fsck.8.in > >> @@ -228,12 +228,12 @@ exactly the opposite of discard option. This is set as default. > >> .TP > >> .BI no_optimize_extents > >> Do not offer to optimize the extent tree by eliminating unnecessary > >> -width or depth. This can also be enabled in the options section of > >> +width or depth. This is the default unless otherwise specified in > >> .BR /etc/e2fsck.conf . > >> .TP > >> .BI optimize_extents > >> Offer to optimize the extent tree by eliminating unnecessary > >> -width or depth. This is the default unless otherwise specified in > >> +width or depth. This can also be enabled in the options section of > >> .BR /etc/e2fsck.conf . > >> .TP > >> .BI inode_count_fullmap > >> diff --git a/e2fsck/unix.c b/e2fsck/unix.c > >> index 1b7ccea..445f806 100644 > >> --- a/e2fsck/unix.c > >> +++ b/e2fsck/unix.c > >> @@ -840,6 +840,8 @@ static errcode_t PRS(int argc, char *argv[], e2fsck_t *ret_ctx) > >> else > >> ctx->program_name = "e2fsck"; > >> > >> + ctx->options |= E2F_OPT_NOOPT_EXTENTS; > >> + > >> phys_mem_kb = get_memory_size() / 1024; > >> ctx->readahead_kb = ~0ULL; > >> while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "panyrcC:B:dE:fvtFVM:b:I:j:P:l:L:N:SsDkz:")) != EOF) > >> @@ -1051,6 +1053,11 @@ static errcode_t PRS(int argc, char *argv[], e2fsck_t *ret_ctx) > >> if (c) > >> ctx->options |= E2F_OPT_NOOPT_EXTENTS; > >> > >> + profile_get_boolean(ctx->profile, "options", "optimize_extents", > >> + 0, 0, &c); > >> + if (c) > >> + ctx->options &= ~E2F_OPT_NOOPT_EXTENTS; > >> + > >> profile_get_boolean(ctx->profile, "options", "inode_count_fullmap", > >> 0, 0, &c); > >> if (c) > >> -- > >> 1.7.12.4 > >> > > > > > Cheers, Andreas > > > > >
