xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] xfsprogs: introduce the free inode btree

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] xfsprogs: introduce the free inode btree
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:40:33 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1399465319-65066-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1399465319-65066-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:21:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Here's v4 of the finobt series for xfsprogs. Patches 1-10 are unchanged
> as they are based on the corresponding kernel patches, which have now
> been merged.
> 
> v4 includes some fairly isolated fixes for mkfs and repair based on
> review feedback for v3:
> 
>       http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-04/msg00239.html
> 
> Some concern was raised over xfs_repair performance based on the
> implementation of patch 17 in v3, so I have run a few repair tests on
> largish filesystems. Tests involved creating a large number of inodes on
> a 1TB 4xraid0, freeing a random percentage to populate the finobt and
> running xfs_repair (e.g., no actual corruptions). xfs_repair was run
> normally (with these patches) and with a change to skip the finobt
> processing via an xfs_sb_version_hasfinobt() hack. The tests were run on
> a 16xcpu, 32GB RAM server.

I still have some concerns about this simply based on the algorithm
and that it will come back an bite us eventually, but for the moment
I think you've done enough to show that it's not going to an
immediate issue.

I haven't seen anything else that needs fixing or causes problems,
so I'm going to merge it for 3.2.1.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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