Re: Horrible ftruncate performance

From: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>
To: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
Cc: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>,
	Dieter N?tzel <Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de>,
	Szakacsits Szabolcs <szaka@sienet.hu>,
	Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2003@gmx.net>,
	reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Subject: Re: Horrible ftruncate performance
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 04:16:45 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030723001645.GB8032@namesys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1058898249.2749.2.camel@tiny.suse.com>

Hello!

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 02:24:09PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:

> Heh, everything needs to be zero defect ;-)  But I completely agree
> about not adding new item types or other format changes.  Still,
> non-extent filesystems can create holes faster than we can, so it is
> worth talking about ways to fix it (within the constraints of existing
> code).

Yeah, we really can insert items with the actual data in the tree
(as I already discussed with Chris). (No, not one item per one pointer,
that will be messy). That should work, I think.

No, that won't hurt reiser4, because the key strenght of the reiser4 is the
throughput and online repacker.
Today the Linus have proclaimed that he really needs the online repacker because
he got tired by inter-file fragmentation (as opposed to in-file
fragmentation) and he really looks forward for someone who
can deliwer XP-like feature of grouping data
based on the previous read-patterns.

Bye,
    Oleg