Home » Mailing list archives » linux-fsdevel » 2007 » October

linux-fsdevel mailing list

FromSubjectsort iconDate
Randy Dunlap
[PATCH] fs menu: small reorg.
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> - move minixfs and ROMfs to the Miscellaneous filesystems menu - move DNOTIFY config symbol so that it is adjacent to INOTIFY instead of being split by the QUOTA config options - add some 'endif' annotations - remove some whitespace (extra blank lines) Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> --- fs/Kconfig | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 47 deletions(...
[ message continues ]
Oct 18, 11:03 pm 2007
Tetsuo Handa
Does \"32.1% non-contigunous\" mean severely fragmented?
Hello. I ran e2fsck and it reported as follows. [root@sakura ~]# e2fsck -f /dev/hda1 e2fsck 1.39 (29-May-2006) Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes Pass 2: Checking directory structure Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity Pass 4: Checking reference counts Pass 5: Checking group summary information /data/VMware: 349/19546112 files (32.1% non-contiguous), 31019203/39072080 blocks Does non-contiguous mean fragmented? If so, where is ext3defrag? Regards. -
Oct 18, 9:49 pm 2007
Theodore Tso
Re: Does \"32.1% non-contigunous\" mean severely fragmented?
Not necessarily; it just means that 32% of your files have at least one discontinuity. Given the ext3 layout, by definition every 128 megs there will be a discontinuity because of the metadata at the beginning of every single block group. You have a small number of files on your system (349) occupying an average of 348 megabytes. So it's not at all surprising that the contiguous percentage is 32%. The recent Flex BG feature that was recently pulled into 2.6.23-git14 for ext4 is desgined to avo...
[ message continues ]
Oct 19, 2:52 pm 2007
David Newall
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories
I did read the claim and it is ambiguous, in that it can reasonably be read to mean that most UNIX systems never allowed such links, which is wrong. All UNIX systems allowed it until relatively recently. -
Oct 18, 10:57 pm 2007
Al Viro
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories
FVO"relatively recently" exceeding a decade and half. In any case, it's _trivial_ to get fs corruption on any system with such links - play with rename() races a bit and you'll get it. And yes, it does include 4.4BSD and quite a chunk of even later history. Anyway, you are quite welcome to propose a sane locking scheme capable of dealing with that mess. As for the posted patch, AFAICS it's FUBAR in handling of .. in such directories. Moreover, how are you going to keep that shadow tree in s...
[ message continues ]
Oct 19, 1:37 am 2007
previous daytodaynext day
October 18, 2007October 19, 2007October 20, 2007