xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:17:29 -0400
Cc: Just Marc <marc@xxxxxxxxx>, Barry Naujok <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070629074114.GS31489@sgi.com>
References: <4683ADEB.3010106@corky.net> <46841C60.5030207@sandeen.net> <4684A506.4030705@corky.net> <op.tun7i8wd3jf8g2@pc-bnaujok.melbourne.sgi.com> <4684A98B.1030000@corky.net> <20070629070814.GR31489@sgi.com> <4684B1CC.60004@corky.net> <20070629074114.GS31489@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604)
David Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 08:16:28AM +0100, Just Marc wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> In my first post I already said something like that can be done but it's 
>> just an ugly hack.   Don't you think it would best be handled cleanly 
>> and correctly by fsr itself?
> 
> No, I don't - if you want files not to be defragmented, then you
> have to set the flags yourself in some way. You have a specific need
> that can be solved by some scripting to describe your defrag/no
> defrag policy. xfs_fsr has no place is setting defrag policy; it's
> function is simply to find and defrag files.

I wouldn't mind seeing a way to tell fsr to not worry about defragging
some files based on current layout; say if the avg extent in the file is
> 100MB, or > 1G, don't bother... if today you have a 4.7G DVD iso image
in 3 extents (not bad) fsr will try to "fix" it for you right?

-eric


> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>