On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:41:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Too many people freak out about this fictitious "fragmentation
> factor." As shown in the fact, it is largely meaningless, because
> the number approaches 100% extremely quickly for just a few
> extents per file.
>
> I thought about removing it altogether, but perhaps a note
> about its uselessness, and a more soothing metric (avg extents
> per file) might be useful.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/db/frag.c b/db/frag.c
> index 36bb689..e11b140 100644
> --- a/db/frag.c
> +++ b/db/frag.c
> @@ -172,6 +172,10 @@ frag_f(
> answer = 0.0;
> dbprintf(_("actual %llu, ideal %llu, fragmentation factor %.2f%%\n"),
> extcount_actual, extcount_ideal, answer);
> + dbprintf(_("Note, this number is largely meaningless.\n"));
> + answer = (double)extcount_actual / (double)extcount_ideal;
> + dbprintf(_("Files on this filesystem average %.2f extents per file\n"),
> + answer);
> return 0;
> }
I'm not quite comfortable with it, in my mind, if it's meaningless, why should
we print it?
I agree with printing the average though.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
--
Carlos
|