Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:25:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:25:13 -0500 Received: from tapu.f00f.org ([66.60.186.129]:36747 "EHLO tapu.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:24:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:24:51 -0800 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Matti Aarnio Cc: Doug McNaught , "Doug O'Neil" , lk Subject: Re: LFS Support for Sendfile Message-ID: <20020302222451.GB9590@tapu.f00f.org> In-Reply-To: <036801c1bfee$b5b0f780$1801010a@Mauser> <20020228100325.O23151@mea-ext.zmailer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020228100325.O23151@mea-ext.zmailer.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:03:25AM +0200, Matti Aarnio wrote: The API (kernel syscall) as defined does not support LFS. I wonder does it really need to? I mean, a loop calling sendfile for 2GB (or whatever) at a time is almost as good, if not better in some ways. The "extent based" filesystems offer flatter performance, and while I can't determine if ReiserFS is exactly of that type, it too offers fast and flat performance. Reiserfs (v3) isn't extent based but does perform pretty well. When I was messing large numbers of with (what at the time were) large files of 50GB or so, XFS proved to be very effective. --cw - 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/