[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS Preallocate using ALLOCSP

To: Smit Shah <getsmit@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS Preallocate using ALLOCSP
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:05:14 -0500
Cc: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <8770d98c0906161442t634467bxe8b0f5c32b49502e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <24042506.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3712BF.7030101@xxxxxxxxxxx> <8770d98c0906152344p185533a9rc144a5667d13d2de@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A37B744.9030301@xxxxxxxxxxx> <0B774481-16A5-42FC-89C3-91096E59E861@xxxxxxx> <8770d98c0906161028j1cc5cbadl49d30092fddf3dbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <B7C1A222-58C5-4858-80B4-F871BF088DB1@xxxxxxx> <8770d98c0906161442t634467bxe8b0f5c32b49502e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090302)
Smit Shah wrote:
> On 6/16/09, Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> but the write performance is going to suffer.
>> It's not clear why it should. Not doing preallocation doesn't
>> mean that there is no inode updates with every write. Why
>> would extent conversion be more expensive that creating the
>> space (extent) and updating the inode size for every write?
>> It'd interesting to reproduce your results. Any details on
>> your tests and the iometer usage?
> Since fallocate uses the RESVSP cmd for xfs. And as given given for
> RESVSP in man page for xfsctl
> If the  XFS filesystem  is  configured to flag unwritten file extents,
> performance will be negatively affected when writing to preallocated
> space, since extra filesystem transactions are required to convert
> extent  flags  on  the  range  of  the  file  written.

And ext4 must do basically the same thing, as would any fs that flags
unwritten extents.

ext4 may convert more at a time, though, rather than leaving
"fragmented" written/unwritten/written/unwritten regions.


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