xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks

from [Eric Sandeen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Just Marc <marc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:38:56 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4683ADEB.3010106@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <4683ADEB.3010106@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Macintosh/20070604) 
Just Marc wrote:

> 2. Files for which 'No improvement will be made' should also be marked 
> as no-defrag, this will avoid a ton of extra work in the future.   

But... that file could drastically change in the future, no?  Just
because it can't be improved now doesn't necessarily mean that it should
never be revisited on subsequent runs, does it?

-Eric
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [PATCH 0/6][TAKE5] fallocate system call, Andreas Dilger
Next by Date:  Re: [linux-pm] Re: [linux-lvm] 2.6.22-rc4 XFS fails after hibernate/resume, Pavel Machek
Previous by Thread:  xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks, Just Marc
Next by Thread:  Re: xfs_fsr, performance related tweaks, Andi Kleen
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]