From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Updated ext4/jbd2 patches based on 2.6.19-rc1 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:10:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20061005231056.174ee381.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1160072610.8508.12.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> <20061005213133.2c4cd82d.akpm@osdl.org> <20061006055829.GH22010@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Kleikamp , ext4 development Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:58290 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932617AbWJFGLC (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2006 02:11:02 -0400 To: Andreas Dilger In-Reply-To: <20061006055829.GH22010@schatzie.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:58:29 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > but the patches have not been changed for ext4 (which should really > default to using extents on a filesystem with the INCOMPAT_EXTENT feature > set unless told otherwise). That is a necessity for filesystems larger > than 2^32 blocks, since there is no way to create old block-mapped files > past that limit. That's news to me. So we only use 48-bit block numbers for extents and not for old-style indirect blocks? How much performance improvement do they get, btw? CPU or IO? I'm not noticing any difference. Has been a while since I did any fs testing. Boy, ext3 is beating the crap out of ext2 for quality of file layout.