On 2011-04-21, at 11:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 01:34:44PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: >> Sorry, this doesn't do it. I think that given what a strange special >> case this is, we're best off waiting for the IO-less throttling, and >> maybe changing the code in xfs/ext4 to be a little more seek aware. Or >> maybe not, it has to get written eventually either way. > > I'm not sure what you mean with seek aware. XFS only clusters > additional pages that are in the same extent, and in fact only does > so for asynchrononous writeback. Not sure how this should be more > seek aware. But doesn't XFS have potentially very large extents, especially in the case of files that were fallocate()'d or linearly written? If there is a single 8GB extent, and then random writes within that extent (seems very database like) grouping the all of the writes in the extent doesn't seem so great. Cheers, Andreas _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
