On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 19:46 +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 16:44 +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:35:50AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Mingming.cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:38 +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: >> >> >> >> Here also has another question. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How to save the file temperature among the umount to be able to >> >> >> >> preserve the file tempreture after reboot? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This above is the requirement from DB product. >> >> >> >> I thought that we can save file temperature in its inode struct, that >> >> >> >> is, add one new field in struct inode, then this info will be written >> >> >> >> to disk with inode. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Any comments or ideas are appreciated, thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Maybe could save the last file temperature with extended attributes. >> >> >> It seems that only ext4 has the concept of extended attributes. >> >> > >> >> > All major filesystems have xattr support. They are used extensively >> >> > by the security and integrity subsystems, for example. >> >> got it, thanks. >> >> > >> >> > Saving the information might be something that is useful to certian >> >> > applications, but lets have the people that need that functionality >> >> > spell out their requirements before discussing how or what to >> >> > implement. Indeed, discussion shoul dreally focus on getting the >> >> > core, in-memory infrastructure sorted out first before trying to >> >> > expand the functionality further... >> >> ah, but the latest patchset need some love from experienced FS guys:)....... >> > >> > There is one other possible issue with saving the data into the >> > filesystem, which is that it may disturb what you are trying to measure. >> > Some filesystems (GFS2 is one) store data for small inodes in the same >> > block as the inode itself. So that means the accesses to the saved hot >> > tracking info may potentially affect the data access times too. Also >> > there is a very limited amount of space to expand the number of fields >> > in the inode, so xattr may be the only solution, depending on how much >> > data needs to be stored in each case. >> Very good analysis, two possible issues are very meanful, thanks. >> > >> > In the GFS2 case (I don't think it is unique in this) xattrs are stored >> > out of line and having to access them in every open means an extra block >> > read per inode, which again has performance implications. >> > >> > So that is not an insurmountable problem, but something to take into >> > account in selecting a solution, >> In summary, you look like preferring to xattr as its solution. >> > > Well, that depends on exactly how large the data to be stored is, and > other factors. It will add overhead to the storage/retrieval but at > least it is fairly generic (wrt on-disk format) so likely to be easier > to retrofit to existing filesystems. Do you have some idea with more details about how to retrofit to existing FS?:) > > I suspect this may be one of those cases where there is no obvious right > answer and it is a case of selecting the least worst option, if that > makes sense? Then we can only check which solution is better via large scale performance test. > > Steve. > > -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu -- 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
