Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

[Jeff Garzik]

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:11:31PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > It's an example of ext2 being bandaided to do something it was never 
> > originally designed to do.  If online resizing had been planned from the 
> > start, allocating new inode tables on the fly would be trivial, as it is 
> > in JFS/NTFS/...
>
> And once again this has *nothing* to do with inode allocation, or
> dynamic allocation of inode tables.  Your "performance issue" has to
> do with a difference in blocksizes.  If you ext2/3 to pass your silly
> test, then upgrade to the latest e2fsprogs and install the following
> /etc/mke2fs.conf:

WTF?  In none of my examples did block size ever change.  In none of my 
examples was block size ever mentioned as a factor.

Inode density was demonstrably different in the resize vs. mkfs cases.

And online resize -obviously- imposes a limit on inode density, by 
locking inodes-per-group at fs creation time.  Dynamic allocation of 
inode tables would permit dynamic sizing of inode tables based on 
current needs, rather than needs determined at fs creation time.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/