Re: fallocate vs ENOSPC

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

 



On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 09:28:32AM +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 
> But then posix_fallocate() would always be slow I think,
> requiring one to actually write the NULs.

Almost no one should ever use posix_fallocate(); it's can be a
performance disaster because you don't know whether or not the file
system will really do fallocate, or will do the slow "write zeros"
thing.

You really should use fallocate(), take the failure if the file system
doesn't support fallocate, and then you can decide what the
appropriate thing to do might be.

       	    		    	     	      - 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


[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