On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:10:37 +0200, Pavel Machek <pavel@bug.ucw.cz> said:
> People cry for ext3, because they want faster fsck. Really, ext2 does
> horribly when it comes to fsck: for me fsck took 6 minutes. ... Also,
> ext2 does pretty bad when it comes to deleting large files:
Use large block sizes then. It makes a huge difference.
> This has one common problem under it: indirect blocks are spread all
> over the media with big holes between them.
They are close to the data, though. Placing indirect information in a
separate cluster of blocks may make it easier to do metadata-only
operations like fsck and unlink, but it will just slow down things which
actually access data too. That seems like a crazy thing to want to do!
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/