On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:21:04PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 04/07/14 16:45, Brian Foster wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:58:45PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > >>On 04/07/14 10:39, Brian Foster wrote: > >>>XFS speculatively preallocates post-EOF blocks on file extending writes > >>>in anticipation of future extending writes. The size of a preallocation > >>>is dynamic and depends on the runtime state of the file and fs. > >>>Generally speaking, preallocation is disabled for very small files and > >> vague what is very small? ^^^ > >>... > > > >I originally pointed out 64k, but that and other heuristic details that > >are subject to change were purged in v2. I'm personally not against > >including something that indicates the default and the notion that it's > >subject to change. I don't feel too strongly about it either way. > >Thoughts appreciated. > > > I think the details are good since everyone has a different idea on > "very small". The FAQ can be changed with the code. You can expect > the TOT FAQ to represent Linux 3.0-stable. What's that supposed to mean? The FAQ on the xfs.org website does not represent a specific release. It is supposed to contain the most up-to-date information we have about various topics. If there's something specific to a kernel version we need to mention, then that's explicitly stated in the FAQ entry.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs