Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-08-02 Thread Younger Liu
On 2013/8/2 2:57, Srinivas Eeda wrote: > On 08/01/2013 01:38 AM, Younger Liu wrote: >> On 2013/8/1 15:20, Joel Becker wrote: >>> Basically, there's so little in the cache that stealing would be too >>> complex. Really we just want to fall back to the global, and if that is >>> empty, you're near e

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-08-01 Thread Srinivas Eeda
On 08/01/2013 01:38 AM, Younger Liu wrote: > On 2013/8/1 15:20, Joel Becker wrote: >> Basically, there's so little in the cache that stealing would be too >> complex. Really we just want to fall back to the global, and if that is >> empty, you're near enough ENOSPC that it doesn't much matter. >>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-08-01 Thread Sunil Mushran
The complexity is not worth it. 2G*16 nodes is only 32G. That's rounding error in systems that use this file system. And you are assuming that all other nodes have all 2G in their cache. If a node runs out of space, a more realistic scenario is that most other nodes are also close to the end. On

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-08-01 Thread Younger Liu
On 2013/8/1 15:20, Joel Becker wrote: > Basically, there's so little in the cache that stealing would be too > complex. Really we just want to fall back to the global, and if that is > empty, you're near enough ENOSPC that it doesn't much matter. > > Joel > Localalloc is a mount option. When mou

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-08-01 Thread Joel Becker
Basically, there's so little in the cache that stealing would be too complex. Really we just want to fall back to the global, and if that is empty, you're near enough ENOSPC that it doesn't much matter. Joel On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:33:48PM -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote: > Because it makes no sen

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-07-31 Thread Sunil Mushran
Because it makes no sense. Unlike inode/extent allocs, local_alloc is a temporary cache. If you fail to allocate, you fallback to the global bitmap. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Younger Liu wrote: > Hi, > While analyzing ocfs2 block allocation, I found: > When claiming space from inode_

[Ocfs2-devel] Why ocfs2 haven't implemented "steal" for local_alloc system files?

2013-07-27 Thread Younger Liu
Hi, While analyzing ocfs2 block allocation, I found: When claiming space from inode_alloc (or extent_alloc) system files, if there is no enough space in inode_alloc (or extent_alloc) and global_bitmap, it could steal space from other slots. But when claiming space from local_alloc system fi