Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-05-01 Thread Valerie Henson
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:06:47AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:58:25PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > > Here's an example, spelled out: > > > > Allocate file 1 in chunk A. > > Grow file 1. > > Chunk A fills up. > > Allocate continuation inode for file 1 in chunk B. > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-05-01 Thread Valerie Henson
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:06:47AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:58:25PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: Here's an example, spelled out: Allocate file 1 in chunk A. Grow file 1. Chunk A fills up. Allocate continuation inode for file 1 in chunk B. Chunk A gets some

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-28 Thread Jörn Engel
On Fri, 27 April 2007 23:50:06 -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > > Any mapping structure will have to be pre-allocated. How much space would you allocate for it then? The required size surely depends on the file size and fragmentation. > So in my secret heart of hearts, I do indeed hope that

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-28 Thread Valerie Henson
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:53:34PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote: > > All this would get easier if continuation inodes were known to be rare. > You can ditch the doubly-linked list in favor of a pointer to the main > inode then - traversing the list again is cheap, after all. And you can > just try

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-28 Thread Valerie Henson
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:53:34PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote: All this would get easier if continuation inodes were known to be rare. You can ditch the doubly-linked list in favor of a pointer to the main inode then - traversing the list again is cheap, after all. And you can just try to

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-28 Thread Jörn Engel
On Fri, 27 April 2007 23:50:06 -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: Any mapping structure will have to be pre-allocated. How much space would you allocate for it then? The required size surely depends on the file size and fragmentation. So in my secret heart of hearts, I do indeed hope that cnodes

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-27 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:58:25PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > Here's an example, spelled out: > > Allocate file 1 in chunk A. > Grow file 1. > Chunk A fills up. > Allocate continuation inode for file 1 in chunk B. > Chunk A gets some free space. > Chunk B fills up. > Pick chunk A for

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-27 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 26 April 2007 22:07:43 -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > > What's important is that each continuation inode have a > back pointer to the parent and that there is some structure for > quickly looking up the continuation inode for a given file offset. > Suggestions for data

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-27 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 26 April 2007 22:07:43 -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: What's important is that each continuation inode have a back pointer to the parent and that there is some structure for quickly looking up the continuation inode for a given file offset. Suggestions for data structures

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-27 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:58:25PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: Here's an example, spelled out: Allocate file 1 in chunk A. Grow file 1. Chunk A fills up. Allocate continuation inode for file 1 in chunk B. Chunk A gets some free space. Chunk B fills up. Pick chunk A for allocating next

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Valerie Henson
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Do I get it right that you just have in each cnode a pointer to the > previous & next cnode? But then if two consecutive cnodes get corrupted, > you have no way to connect the chain, do you? If each cnode contained > some unique

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Valerie Henson
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:05:04PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > > No, I'm referring to a different file. The scenario is that you have > a growing file in a nearly full disk with files being deleted (and > thus space being freed) such that allocations for the growing file > bounce back and forth

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 26 April 2007 10:47:40 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > This assumes that you know a chunk has been corrupted, though. > How do you find that out? Option 1: you notice something odd while serving userspace. Option 2: a checking/scrubbing daemon of some sorts. The first will obviously

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Jeff Dike wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Alan Cox wrote: Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Alan Cox
> Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per > file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation > algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you assuming that a

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > Jeff Dike wrote: > >How about this case: > > > > Growing file starts in chunk A. > > Overflows into chunk B. > > Delete file in chunk A. > > Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in > >chunk A (and

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A (and nothing anywhere else) Overflows into chunk A Delete file

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jeff Dike
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:47:10PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > Actually, there is an upper limit on the number of continuation > inodes. Each file can have a maximum of one continuation inode per > chunk. (This is why we need to support sparse files.) How about this case: Growing

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jan Kara
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > > -- -- > > > | cnode 0 |-->| cnode 0 |--> to another cnode or NULL > > > -- -- > > > |

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: -- -- | cnode 0 |--| cnode 0 |-- to another cnode or NULL -- -- | cnode 1 |-

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jeff Dike
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:47:10PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: Actually, there is an upper limit on the number of continuation inodes. Each file can have a maximum of one continuation inode per chunk. (This is why we need to support sparse files.) How about this case: Growing file

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A (and nothing anywhere else) Overflows into chunk A Delete file

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A (and nothing anywhere

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Alan Cox
Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you assuming that a chunk

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Alan Cox wrote: Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Jeff Dike wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 26 April 2007 10:47:40 +1000, David Chinner wrote: This assumes that you know a chunk has been corrupted, though. How do you find that out? Option 1: you notice something odd while serving userspace. Option 2: a checking/scrubbing daemon of some sorts. The first will obviously miss

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Valerie Henson
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:05:04PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: No, I'm referring to a different file. The scenario is that you have a growing file in a nearly full disk with files being deleted (and thus space being freed) such that allocations for the growing file bounce back and forth between

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Valerie Henson
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: Do I get it right that you just have in each cnode a pointer to the previous next cnode? But then if two consecutive cnodes get corrupted, you have no way to connect the chain, do you? If each cnode contained some unique identifier

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread David Chinner
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:03:44PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > > > > > The structure looks like this: > > > > > > -- -- > > > | cnode

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:38:34AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > The case where only a fsck of the corrupt chunk is done would not find the > cnode references. Maybe there needs to be per-chunk info which contains > a list/bitmap of other chunks that have cnodes shared with each chunk? Yes,

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > > > The structure looks like this: > > > > -- -- > > | cnode 0 |-->| cnode 0 |--> to another cnode or NULL > > --

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:34:03PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > What is more important, design puts (as far as I can see) no upper limit > on the number of continuation inodes, and hence, even if _average_ fsck > time is greatly reduced, occasionally it can take more time than ext2 of > the

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:34:48PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely. > > Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode > I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every > logical block is presented in

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Amit Gud
Andreas Dilger wrote: How do you recover if fsfuzzer takes out a cnode in the chain? The chunk is marked clean, but clearly corrupted and needs fixing and you don't know what it was pointing at. Hence you have a pointer to a trashed cnode *somewhere* that you need to find and fix, and a bunch

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread David Lang
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: David Lang writes: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > David Lang writes: > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > > > > > Amit Gud writes: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an initial

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Apr 25, 2007 20:54 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > Right now, there is no distinction between an inode and continuation > > inode (also referred to as 'cnode' below), except for the > > EXT2_IS_CONT_FL flag. Every inode holds a list

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Nikita Danilov
David Lang writes: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > David Lang writes: > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > > > > > Amit Gud writes: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread David Chinner
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > Nikita Danilov wrote: > >Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely. > > > >Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode > >I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every > >logical

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread David Chinner
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: Nikita Danilov wrote: Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely. Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every logical block is

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Nikita Danilov
David Lang writes: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: David Lang writes: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: Amit Gud writes: Hello, This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at:

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Apr 25, 2007 20:54 +1000, David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: Right now, there is no distinction between an inode and continuation inode (also referred to as 'cnode' below), except for the EXT2_IS_CONT_FL flag. Every inode holds a list of

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread David Lang
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: David Lang writes: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: David Lang writes: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: Amit Gud writes: Hello, This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Amit Gud
Andreas Dilger wrote: How do you recover if fsfuzzer takes out a cnode in the chain? The chunk is marked clean, but clearly corrupted and needs fixing and you don't know what it was pointing at. Hence you have a pointer to a trashed cnode *somewhere* that you need to find and fix, and a bunch

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:34:48PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely. Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every logical block is presented in at most

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:34:03PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: What is more important, design puts (as far as I can see) no upper limit on the number of continuation inodes, and hence, even if _average_ fsck time is greatly reduced, occasionally it can take more time than ext2 of the same

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: The structure looks like this: -- -- | cnode 0 |--| cnode 0 |-- to another cnode or NULL -- --

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread Valerie Henson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:38:34AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: The case where only a fsck of the corrupt chunk is done would not find the cnode references. Maybe there needs to be per-chunk info which contains a list/bitmap of other chunks that have cnodes shared with each chunk? Yes,

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-25 Thread David Chinner
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:03:44PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: The structure looks like this: -- -- | cnode 0 |--|

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread Amit Gud
Nikita Danilov wrote: Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely. Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every logical block is presented in at most one of these inodes. For this one has to read

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread David Lang
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: David Lang writes: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > Amit Gud writes: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed > > > at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread Nikita Danilov
David Lang writes: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > Amit Gud writes: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed > > > at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread David Lang
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: Amit Gud writes: Hello, > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed > at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and > http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf I have a couple of questions about

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread Nikita Danilov
Amit Gud writes: Hello, > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed > at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and > http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf I have a couple of questions about chunkfs repair process. First, as I

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread Nikita Danilov
Amit Gud writes: Hello, This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf I have a couple of questions about chunkfs repair process. First, as I

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread David Lang
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: Amit Gud writes: Hello, This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf I have a couple of questions about

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread Nikita Danilov
David Lang writes: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: Amit Gud writes: Hello, This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread David Lang
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: David Lang writes: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Nikita Danilov wrote: Amit Gud writes: Hello, This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-24 Thread Amit Gud
Nikita Danilov wrote: Maybe I failed to describe the problem presicely. Suppose that all chunks have been checked. After that, for every inode I0 having continuations I1, I2, ... In, one has to check that every logical block is presented in at most one of these inodes. For this one has to read

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Amit Gud
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: Could you send this out as a patch to ext2 codebase, so we can just look at the changes for chunkfs ? That might also make it small enough to inline your patch in email for review. What kind of results are you planning to gather to evaluate/optimize this ?

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:58:49PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:21:34AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed > > at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:21:34AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed > at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and > http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf > > This implementation is done within ext2

[RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Amit Gud
This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf This implementation is done within ext2 driver. Every chunk is an independent ext2 file system. The knowledge

[RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Amit Gud
This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf This implementation is done within ext2 driver. Every chunk is an independent ext2 file system. The knowledge

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:21:34AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and http://cis.ksu.edu/~gud/docs/chunkfs-hotdep-val-arjan-gud-zach.pdf This implementation is done within ext2 driver.

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Suparna Bhattacharya
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:58:49PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:21:34AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: This is an initial implementation of ChunkFS technique, briefly discussed at: http://lwn.net/Articles/190222 and

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-23 Thread Amit Gud
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: Could you send this out as a patch to ext2 codebase, so we can just look at the changes for chunkfs ? That might also make it small enough to inline your patch in email for review. What kind of results are you planning to gather to evaluate/optimize this ?