From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Bug in delayed allocation: really bad block layouts! Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:22:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20080810182231.GB15353@mit.edu> References: <489F2B38.3060104@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.ORG ([69.25.196.31]:47421 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752223AbYHJSWe (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:22:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <489F2B38.3060104@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:54:00PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Hm, and I tried writing out 10 files in order as a simple test but > umount/remount brought me back many 0-byte files, I need to update my > patchset I guess. :) > One of the questions in my mind is whether this is a regression triggered by the some of our most recent patches.... since I only have 2.2% files reported a fragmented by e2fsck, and if this problem had always been there, I would have expected a much higher fragmentation number. So if you have some older kernels, you might want to see if you can replicate the problem. I've since found that just doing a copy via "(tar -cf - -C / usr/include ) | tar -C /mnt -xf -)" is sufficient to see the problem. Just add a "sync; sleep 5" before the umount. :-) - Ted