From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: Proposed design for big allocation blocks for ext4 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:03:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20110226000304.GC28214@noexit> References: <20110225215924.GA28214@noexit> <20110225234002.GA2924@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Ted Ts'o Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:40486 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755506Ab1BZADP (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:03:15 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110225234002.GA2924@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:40:02PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 01:59:25PM -0800, Joel Becker wrote: > > > > Why not call it a 'cluster' like the rest of us do? The term > > 'blocksize' is overloaded enough already. > > Yes, good point. Allocation cluster makes a lot more sense as a name. Thank you ;-) > We're going to keep track of what blocks are uninitialized or not on a > 4k basis. So that part of the ext4 code doesn't change. Ok, good. We don't have that info, so we enjoy a lot of fun with the various pagesize/blocksize/clustersize combinations. > We could add complexity to do suballocations for directories, but KISS > seems to be a much better idea for now. Oh dear God no. Joel -- "Nobody loves me, Nobody seems to care. Troubles and worries, people, You know I've had my share." http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org