On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:10:44PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Now I am on the same side of David. > Which means a runtime interface to change them. (along with mkfs option) > > If provide some configurable features, then it should be able to be > tuned at both right time and mkfs time. > Or, just don't touch it until there is really enough user demand. > (In stripe_len case, it's also a possible choice, as configurable stripe > length doesn't really affect much except RAID5/6)
I think that we need configurable stripe size regardless. The performance drop is measurable if the stripe size used by filesystem does not match the hardware. > I totally understand that implement will cost you a lot of more time, > not only kernel part but also user-tool part. > > But this also means more patches. > No matter what the motivation for you to contribute to btrfs, more > patches (except the more time spent) are always good. > > More patches, more reputation built in community, and more patches also > means better split code structures for easier review. Let me note that a good reputation is also built from patch reviews (hint hint). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
