On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:11:31PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It's an example of ext2 being bandaided to do something it was never
> originally designed to do. If online resizing had been planned from the
> start, allocating new inode tables on the fly would be trivial, as it is
> in JFS/NTFS/...
And once again this has *nothing* to do with inode allocation, or
dynamic allocation of inode tables. Your "performance issue" has to
do with a difference in blocksizes. If you ext2/3 to pass your silly
test, then upgrade to the latest e2fsprogs and install the following
/etc/mke2fs.conf:
[defaults]
base_features = sparse_super,filetype,resize_inode,dir_index
blocksize = 4096
inode_ratio = 8192
[fs_types]
small = {
blocksize = 4096
inode_ratio = 8192
}
floppy = {
blocksize = 4096
inode_ratio = 8192
}
Happy now?
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
