On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

quoted text
> > > Of course there is. The seeks are reduced since there are an factor 
> > > of 16 less metadata blocks. fsck does not read files. It just reads 
> > > metadata structures. And the larger contiguous areas the faster.
> > 
> > Some metadata is contiguous: inode tables, some directories (if they got
> > lucky), bitmap tables.  But fsck surely reads them in a single swoop
> > anyway, so there's no gain there.
> 
> The metadata needs to refer to 1/16th of the earlier pages that need to be 
> tracked. metadata is shrunk significantly.

Only if the filesystems are altered to use larger blocksizes and if the
operator then chooses to use that feature.  Then they suck for small-sized
(and even medium-sized) files.

So you're still talking about corner cases: specialised applications which
require careful setup and administrator intervention.

What can we do to optimise the common case?

quoted text
> > Other metadata (indirect blocks) are 100% discontiguous, and reading those
> > with a 64k IO into 64k of memory is completely dumb.
> 
> The effect of a larger page size is that the filesystem will 
> place more meta data into a single page instead of spreading it out. 
> Reading a mass of meta data with a 64k read is an intelligent choice to 
> make in particular if there is a large series of such reads.

Again: requires larger blocksize: specialised, uninteresting for what will
remain the common case: 4k blocksize.

The alleged fsck benefit is also unrelated to variable PAGE_CACHE_SIZE. 
It's a feature of larger (unweildy?) blocksize, and xfs already has that
working (doesn't it?)

There may be some benefits to some future version of ext4.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/