[Top] [All Lists]

Re: posix_fallocate

To: Krzysztof Błaszkowski <kb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: posix_fallocate
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:45:10 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201005102017.11706.kb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <201005071022.37863.kb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201005100911.52491.kb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BE81AB4.7000600@xxxxxxxxxxx> <201005102017.11706.kb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20100228)
Krzysztof Błaszkowski wrote:
> On Monday 10 May 2010 16:39, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Krzysztof Błaszkowski wrote:


>>> We stick with which seems to be good for us. We do not change
>>> kernels easily, as soon as higher revision arrives because it doesn't
>>> make sense from stability point of view. We have seen too many times
>>> regression bugs so if we are confident with some revision then there is
>>> no point to change this.
>> It was just a testing suggestion, but I already tested upstream and the
>> problem persists, now just need to find the time to dig into it.
> I see and I am glad you confirmed this. Do you think that fallocate called 
> many times with fixed size and increasing offset will work better than one 
> time call with huge size @ 0 offset ?

I'd expect that to work; it's certainly worth a test, and please send your
results back to the list ;)


> Krzysztof
>> -Eric

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