Re: i_version changes

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

 



Jean noel Cordenner wrote:
hi,

Peter Staubach a écrit :

Is the perceived performance hit really going to be as large
as suspected?  We already update the time fields fairly often
and we don't pay a huge penalty for those, or at least not a
penalty that we aren't willing to pay.  Has anyone measured
the cost?

Few month ago, I ran a FFSB test on a 2.6.23 kernel enabling or not the i_version flag.
http://bullopensource.org/ext4/20071116/ffsb-write.html

This is good information.

A couple of questions -- what is the "-I 256" option used for the ext4
mkfs?

What was the variance between the results of the 5 runs?  Is 2%
significant or not?

   Thanx...

      ps
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux