From: Alex Tomas Subject: Re: Design alternatives for fragments/file tail support in ext4 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:56:46 +0400 Message-ID: References: <20061013081002.GR6221@schatzie.adilger.int> <20061013104947.GB5519@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Alex Tomas Return-path: Received: from [80.71.248.82] ([80.71.248.82]:32699 "EHLO gw.home.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309AbWJMK5D (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:57:03 -0400 To: Theodore Tso In-Reply-To: <20061013104947.GB5519@thunk.org> (Theodore Tso's message of "Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:49:47 -0400") Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org >>>>> Theodore Tso (TT) writes: TT> I suggest this be tunable by superblock field, and not by a /proc TT> tunable. This is the sort of thing which might be different TT> per-filesystem, and the algorithm will be most effective if the TT> filesystem always use the same cluster size from the time when it was TT> first created. I'd be happy to assign a superblock field for this TT> purpose, and add the appropriate tune2fs support if we have general TT> agreement on this point. that would be good. there is even a stride option to mke2fs? thanks, Alex