RE:Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))

RE:Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 172 bytes --]

sounds good, could a space wiper be made for secret agencies/buisness throwing away old hdds?

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:49:48 -0400 	jlnance@intrex.net wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2925 bytes --]

From: jlnance@intrex.net
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 -  (NUMA))
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:49:48 -0400
Message-ID: <20021008124948.GA1572@tricia.dyndns.org>

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 07:50:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> I have the core code for ext3.  It's at
> http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.4/2.4.19-pre10/ext3-reloc-page.patch
> I never tested it, but that's a formality ;)
> 
> It offers a simple ioctl to reloate a single page's worth of blocks.
> It's fully journalled and recoverable, pagecache coherent, etc.
> But the userspace application which calls that ioctl hasn't been
> written.

Hi Andrew,
    I decided not to let the fact that I have never written any FS code
stand in the way of making suggestions :-) :-)
    Do you think it would be better to make the defragmentation part of
the normal operation of the FS rather than a seperate application.  For
example, if you did a fragmentation check/fix on the last close of a file
you would know that coherency issues were not going to be important.  It
might also give you some way to determine which files were important to
keep close together.

Thanks,

Jim
-
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/

Re: Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))

[jbradford]

> >     Do you think it would be better to make the defragmentation part of
> > the normal operation of the FS rather than a seperate application.  For
> > example, if you did a fragmentation check/fix on the last close of a file
> > you would know that coherency issues were not going to be important.  It
> > might also give you some way to determine which files were important to
> > keep close together.

> sounds good, could a space wiper be made for secret
> agencies/buisness throwing away old hdds?

They can just do:

dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda

John.