On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:42:55AM -0400, Sanidhya Solanki wrote: > > I'll comment on the overall approach and skip code-specific comments. > > > > The changelog does not explain why there's a need for a new blockgroup > > type and what's the relation to the existing types. It seems that it > > extends the data/metadata/system group, but I think this is totally > > wrong. > > I agree in principle, but I did not want to modify the existing balance > targets, but, instead, piggyback on the existing balance implementation > to re-balance the data.
But this is not about balance. The stripe size is more like node size, ie. something that gets set at the mkfs time and stays for the filesystem lifetime. Multiple stripesize values would be hard to implement at least, not something that we'd do for the first implementation. > This approach was recommended to be by an experienced BTrFS developer > on the IRC as the right way to implement the change. I want his name. I remember talking to you about that patch but dismissed the 'another raid group' approach. -- 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
