On Dec 08, 2008 18:38 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > > Turns out that ext4 doesn't suffer from the slowdown in the > > first place. The paper is extremly interesting, I'm looking > > at the implications for our default settings (most users > > are still using Samba on ext3 on Linux). > > I thought the paper only talked about ext3, and theorized that delayed > allocation in ext4 might be enough to make the problem go away, but > they had not actually done any measurements to confirm this > supposition. Has there been any more recent benchmarks comparing > ext3, ext4, and XFS running Samba serving Windows clients? It wouldn't be a bad idea to use this hint in the kernel to call fallocate(), given the fact that this is used by a number of apps (i.e. all of them) that predate fallocate(). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. -- 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
