From: Antonio Vargas <windenntw@gmail.com>
To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: soft update vs journaling?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:52:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <69304d110601230552n4c7656cal9c6901e180e82504@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <536E71BF-44FF-430C-8C19-F06526F0C78D@mac.com>
On 1/23/06, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2006, at 02:24, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Hot-shrinking a filesystem is certainly possible for any
> > filesystem, but the problem is how many filesystem data structures
> > you have to walk in order to find all the owner of all of the
> > blocks that you have to relocate. That generally isn't a RAM
> > overhead problem, but the fact that in general, most filesystems
> > don't have an efficient way to answer the question, "who owns this
> > arbitrary disk block?" Having extents means you have a slightly
> > more efficient encoding system, but it still is the case that you
> > have to check potentially every file in the filesystem to see if it
> > is the owner of one of the disk blocks that needs to be moved when
> > you are shrinking the filesystem.
>
> The way that I'm considering implementing this is by intentionally
> fragmenting the allocation bitmap, catalog file, etc, such that each
> 1/8 or so of the disk contains its own allocation bitmap describing
> its contents, its own set of files or directories, etc. The
> allocator would largely try to keep individual btree fragments
> cohesive, such that one of the 1/8th divisions of the disk would only
> have pertinent data for itself. The idea would be that when trying
> to look up an allocation block, in the common case you need only
> parse a much smaller subsection of the disk structures.
this sounds exactly the same as ext2/ext3 allocation groups :)
> > And the only use for such a [reverse-mapping] data structure would
> > be to make shrinking a filesystem more efficient.
>
> Not entirely true. I _believe_ you could use such data structures to
> make the allocation algorithm much more robust against fragmentation
> if you record the right kind of information.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett
>
> --
> If you don't believe that a case based on [nothing] could potentially
> drag on in court for _years_, then you have no business playing with
> the legal system at all.
> -- Rob Landley
>
--
Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network
http://wind.codepixel.com/
windNOenSPAMntw@gmail.com
thesameasabove@amigascne.org
Every day, every year
you have to work
you have to study
you have to scene.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-23 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-22 6:42 soft update vs journaling? John Richard Moser
2006-01-22 8:51 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-01-22 18:40 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-22 19:05 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-01-22 19:08 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-01-22 19:25 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-01-24 2:33 ` Jörn Engel
2006-01-22 9:31 ` Theodore Ts'o
2006-01-22 18:54 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-22 21:02 ` Theodore Ts'o
2006-01-22 22:44 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-23 7:24 ` Theodore Ts'o
2006-01-23 13:31 ` Mitchell Blank Jr
2006-01-23 13:33 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-23 13:52 ` Antonio Vargas [this message]
2006-01-23 16:48 ` Linux VFS architecture questions Kyle Moffett
2006-01-23 17:00 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-23 17:50 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-23 17:54 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-01-23 20:48 ` soft update vs journaling? Folkert van Heusden
2006-01-23 1:02 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-22 19:50 ` Diego Calleja
2006-01-22 20:39 ` Suleiman Souhlal
2006-01-22 20:50 ` Diego Calleja
2006-01-23 1:00 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-23 1:09 ` Suleiman Souhlal
2006-01-23 2:09 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-22 19:26 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2006-01-23 0:06 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-23 5:32 ` Michael Loftis
2006-01-23 18:52 ` John Richard Moser
2006-01-23 19:32 ` Matthias Andree
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=69304d110601230552n4c7656cal9c6901e180e82504@mail.gmail.com \
--to=windenntw@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mrmacman_g4@mac.com \
--cc=nigelenki@comcast.net \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).