Hi, On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:42:02 +0900, "Yongkun Wang" wrote: > Dear Ryusuke: > > Thank you for the quick support. Nilfs2 is awesome. > > It seems there is still overhead on the checkpoints. But if I set > the protection period to 0, each time the cleanerd is invoked, it > should clean all the obsolete data blocks. Is what I say right?
If we add dedicated option to cleanerd, we can cut off the overhead effectively, but yeah, I Agree. We can mitigate the overhead simply by ignoring past checkpoints. Cheers, Ryusuke Konishi > Thanks again. > > Best regards, > Yongkun > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryusuke Konishi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:06 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NILFS users] [SPAM] Set the protection period to zero > > Hi, > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:01:40 +0900, "Yongkun Wang" wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > I want to set the protection period to zero, to disable the snapshot > > or checkpoint. What I want is a simple log-structured file > > system. The GC can clean the obsolete blocks by interval only. > > > > Is that possible? > > I don't think it's achieved just by setting protection period to zero, > but it's possible by rewriting a few functions in cleanerd.c. > > Of course, it's not exactly the same because nilfs kernel codes still > performs additional work needed to create checkpoints. > > But, does it have a point for you? > > > Regards, > Ryusuke Konishi > _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
