Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:26:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:25:49 -0400 Received: from smtp-out-3.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.233]:2948 "EHLO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:24:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3DA24B4A0064C333@mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr> (added by postmaster@wanadoo.fr) From: christophe varoqui Subject: block allocators and LVMs To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:30:05 +0200 Organization: devoteam User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1211 Lines: 23 hello, reading the recent threads about FS block allocator algorithms and about possible integration of a new volume management framework, I wondered if the role of intelligent block allocators and/or online FS defragmentation could be replaced by a block remapper in the LVM subsystem. On one hand, online defrag seems hard to achieve (Tru64 advfs still can't get it right after 4 years) and intelligently allocating blocks can be costly (not to say it could be useless on a heavily fragmented logical volume) ... on the other hand, the pvmove envisionned by M. Thornber seems quite able to handle the extend remapping. The block device layer is pretty well positioned to know about disk head seeks and could do IO accounting per extend. These information seems sufficient to efficiently order extends. Am I completely out of my mind ? Evidently, I would be very proud if not but I can handle responses like "crap. just stop thinking man" . cvaroqui - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/