Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757558AbYJPTSr (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:18:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756674AbYJPTSf (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:18:35 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.186]:9377 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756241AbYJPTSe (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:18:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:from; b=p4poD2UM+r8+TLz44A/ZSMXEBSjHhFmixU6Xvwu8i1gbjJlHIEdtwih2DTM8NVDVw4 SfPSUuZ5iKvveKd+mqus+hQuzpmq2rM8duJv49T1NvHzKEaIT3egwJ0UoEpN6qRHaiUE /BywcjkFEVXVV1sU3+e1xCmnOoSw7hWdoUnFA= To: Theodore Tso Cc: Roland Dreier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext2, ext3, ext4 config headlines inconsistent: References: <20081016151559.GB12962@mit.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:18:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20081016151559.GB12962@mit.edu> (Theodore Tso's message of "Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:15:59 -0400") Message-ID: <87abd45oxo.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Harald Arnesen Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1825 Lines: 45 Theodore Tso writes: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:37:23AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: >> Hi Ted, >> >> While running an oldconfig with the new kernel, I got the following prompt: >> >> Second extended fs support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n >> Ext3 journalling file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n >> The Extended 4 (ext4) filesystem (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n >> >> the lack of parallelism in the headline prompts is a little jarring. >> Any interest in a patch to make this look uniform, or is it not worth >> it? If you are interested, which variant do you prefer? > > I'll note that we don't have consistency across all of the entries in > fs/Kconfig, not just ext2/ext3/ext4. If it were just up to me I'd > probably prefer: > > Ext2 file system support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n > Ext3 file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n > Ext4 file system support (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n > > ... but it might be worth looking at the other entries in fs/Kconfig > as well. Something completely different - Documentation/filesystems/ext4: - When comparing performance with other filesystems, remember that ext3/4 by default offers higher data integrity guarantees than most. So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'. And you might as well use ^^^^ `mount -o nobh' too along with it. Making the journal larger than the mke2fs default often helps performance with metadata-intensive workloads. Anything _but_ ext3 here? -- Hilsen Harald. -- 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/