| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 04/16] xfs: dynamic speculative EOF preallocation |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:43:25 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1289206519-18377-5-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1289206519-18377-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1289206519-18377-5-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
> For default settings, ???e size and the initial extents is determined weird character. > The allocsize mount option still controls the minimum preallocation size, so > the smallest extent size can stil be bound in situations where this behaviour > is not sufficient. Do we also need a way to keep an upper boundary? Think lots of slowly growing log files on a filesystem not having tons of free space. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 05/16] xfs: don't truncate prealloc from frequently accessed inodes, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 03/16] [RFC] xfs: use generic per-cpu counter infrastructure, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 04/16] xfs: dynamic speculative EOF preallocation, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 04/16] xfs: dynamic speculative EOF preallocation, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |