Re: defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow defrag (EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXT) in 32bit compat mode)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

After thinking about it overnight, I realized I think in terms
of 1 drive is 1 filesystem.  That is a fatal trap for defragment.
 

So I retract that we don't care about zone geometry, we need to
care deeply, but not in the sense of how moving short distances
on a drive affects the performance.  What we need to ensure is
that the placer algorithm does not span across partitions as in:

["/" 100GB created] [300GB other] [100G LVM added to "/"]

so the filesystem thinks it is 200GB contiguous and the
defragmenter thinks address 90GB is closer to address 110 GB
than 90GB is to 50GB.

jim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] ext4: allow defrag (EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXT) in 32bit co ..., Christian Borntraeger, (Sun Mar 7, 1:32 pm)
Re: defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow ..., Christian Borntraeger, (Mon Mar 8, 12:53 am)
Re: defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow ..., Christian Borntraeger, (Mon Mar 8, 9:00 am)
Re: defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow ..., Valdis.Kletnieks, (Mon Mar 8, 12:38 pm)
Re: defrag deployment status (was Re: [PATCH] ext4: allow ..., jim owens, (Tue Mar 9, 6:23 am)
[PATCH resend] ext4: allow defrag (EXT4_IOC_MOVE_EXT) in 3 ..., Christian Borntraeger, (Fri Mar 12, 12:01 am)