Am 28.06.2019 um 16:43 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Thu 27 Jun 2019 06:05:55 PM CEST, Denis Lunev wrote: > > Please note, I am not talking now about your case with COW. Here the > > allocation is performed on the sub-cluster basis, i.e. the abscence of > > the sub-cluster in the image means hole on that offset. This is > > important difference. > > I mentioned the possibility that if you have a case like 2MB / 64KB and > you write to an empty cluster then you could allocate the necessary > subclusters, and additionally fallocate() the space of the whole cluster > (2MB) in order to try to keep it contiguous. > > With this we would lose the space saving advantage of having > subclusters. But perhaps that would work for smaller cluster sizes (it > would mitigate the fragmentation problem).
There seem to be use cases for both ways. So does this need to be an option? Kevin
