Alberto Fuentes (alberto.fuen...@qindel.com on 2012-01-23 09:24 +0100): > On 01/10/2012 11:31 PM, Arno Schuring wrote: > > afuentes (alberto.fuen...@qindel.com on 2012-01-10 10:33 +0100): > >> What happens when you run out of space to allocate new extends in > >> ext4? is not allowed to write anymore even tho there are tons of > >> blocks available? > > > > I'm unsure what you mean. Extents is only an optimization strategy > > for allocating contiguous blocks. If there are no contiguous > > blocks, ext4 falls back to allocating singular blocks, but with > > normal usage patterns you should never get "tons of blocks > > available" with none of them contiguous. > > > > At least, that's how I understand it. Are you getting allocation > > failures with still plenty of space available? > > > > > > Regards, > > Arno > > > > > > This is how i see it > > [X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] > [X][X][X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] > [X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ] > [X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] > [X][X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] > [-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-] > [-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-] > > row= extends > [x]= used > [ ]= allocated > [-]= free
That's not how extents work. What you are describing is a large block granularity, not extents-based allocation. There is no reason why the next allocation can't happen like this: [X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [X][X][X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][A][A][A][A] [X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [X][X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] [-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-] [-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-][-] Regards, Arno -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120123202148.3be5a...@viper.intra.loos.site
