xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [FAQ v2] XFS speculative preallocation

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [FAQ v2] XFS speculative preallocation
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 08:57:10 +1000
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <534324D0.3080701@xxxxxxx>
References: <20140407153906.GC48184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53430375.3060203@xxxxxxx> <20140407214527.GA43531@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <534324D0.3080701@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:21:04PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 04/07/14 16:45, Brian Foster wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:58:45PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>On 04/07/14 10:39, Brian Foster wrote:
> >>>XFS speculatively preallocates post-EOF blocks on file extending writes
> >>>in anticipation of future extending writes. The size of a preallocation
> >>>is dynamic and depends on the runtime state of the file and fs.
> >>>Generally speaking, preallocation is disabled for very small files and
> >>                    vague what is very small?   ^^^
> >>...
> >
> >I originally pointed out 64k, but that and other heuristic details that
> >are subject to change were purged in v2. I'm personally not against
> >including something that indicates the default and the notion that it's
> >subject to change. I don't feel too strongly about it either way.
> >Thoughts appreciated.
> 
> 
> I think the details are good since everyone has a different idea on
> "very small". The FAQ can be changed with the code. You can expect
> the TOT FAQ to represent Linux 3.0-stable.

What's that supposed to mean? The FAQ on the xfs.org website does
not represent a specific release. It is supposed to contain the most
up-to-date information we have about various topics. If there's
something specific to a kernel version we need to mention, then
that's explicitly stated in the FAQ entry....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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