On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:25:50AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:18 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > c) Do I need to put some hack in the filesystem code for above (to
> > allocate >32 bit physical block numbers) ?
> I had a ext3 hack patch before to allow application specify
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:11:17PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Feb 07, 2007 16:06 +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:25:50AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > > - disable preallocation if the filesystem free blocks is under some low
> > > watermarks, to save space
On Feb 07, 2007 16:06 +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:25:50AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > - disable preallocation if the filesystem free blocks is under some low
> > watermarks, to save space for near future real block allocation?
>
> A policy decision like this
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:25:50AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:18 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > I plan to test the persistent preallocation patches on a huge sparse
> > device, to know if >32 bit physical block numbers (upto 48bit) behave as
> > expected.
> Thanks!
>
>
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 13:18 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> I plan to test the persistent preallocation patches on a huge sparse
> device, to know if >32 bit physical block numbers (upto 48bit) behave as
> expected.
Thanks!
> I have following questions for this and will appreciate
> suggestions he
I plan to test the persistent preallocation patches on a huge sparse
device, to know if >32 bit physical block numbers (upto 48bit) behave as
expected. I have following questions for this and will appreciate
suggestions here:
a) What should be the sparse device size which I should use for testing?
