Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch]

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...>
Cc: Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@...>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <rohitseth@...>, <linux-ext4@...>
Date: Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 10:51 pm

On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 08:10:20PM -0800, Daniel Phillips wrote:

It's not that much effort, and for a big database (say, like a 50GB
database file), the indirect blocks would take up 50 megabytes of
memory.  Collapsing it into an extent tree would save that memory into
a few kilobytes.  I suppose a database server would probably have
5-10GB's of memory, so the grand scheme of things it's not a vast
amount of memory, but the trick is keeping the indirect blocks pinned
so they don't get pushed out by some vast, gigunndo Java application
running in the same server as the database.  If you have the indirect
blocks encoded into the extent tree, then you don't have to worry
about that.

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

Messages in current thread:
Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6..., Christoph Hellwig, (Tue Jan 15, 9:15 am)
Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6..., Theodore Tso, (Sun Jan 20, 10:51 pm)
Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6..., Christoph Hellwig, (Tue Jan 15, 9:16 am)