On 21.10.2010, at 22.58, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Looks like OS X has fcntl(F_PREALLOCATE), although it doesn't seem to produce
> any visible results, other than giving ENOSPC error if I give too large of a
> size (100 MB or so). Disk usage doesn't shrink though, so maybe it's more of
> a hint?..
On 20.10.2010, at 17.53, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> "What you want is _physical_ preallocation, not speculative
>> preallocation. i.e. look up XFS_IOC_RESVSP or FIEMAP so your
>> application does _permanent_ preallocate past EOF.
>
> Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better
Timo Sirainen put forth on 10/21/2010 9:52 AM:
> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 23:50 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better: Linux
>>> has fallocate() that can do it for other filesystems than just XFS. Or
>>> looks like it's only XFS and ext4 (ext
On 2010-10-21 10:40 AM, William Blunn wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 14:25, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> Reiserfs is not 'kaput', it is still being maintained in the linux
>> kernel (both v3 and work is ongoing for v4), and will be for the
>> foreseeable future.
>
> For the benefit of anyone reading this and
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 23:50 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better: Linux
> > has fallocate() that can do it for other filesystems than just XFS. Or
> > looks like it's only XFS and ext4 (ext3 doesn't support it). I don't
> > know if other
On 21/10/2010 14:25, Charles Marcus wrote:
Reiserfs is not 'kaput', it is still being maintained in the linux
kernel (both v3 and work is ongoing for v4), and will be for the
foreseeable future.
For the benefit of anyone reading this and wondering "Well is it kaput
or not?": Charles and I are
On 2010-10-21 6:58 AM, William Blunn wrote:
> Though in the case of the "small number of large files" (i.e. the
> opposite of ReiserFS's strength), which you would get with mbox and
> mdbox,
Good point...
> one would have to ask what upside ReiserFS would bring to the party
> which would outweigh
On 20/10/2010 18:32, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-10-20 12:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better:
Linux has fallocate() that can do it for other filesystems than just
XFS. Or looks like it's only XFS and ext4 (ext3 doesn't support it).
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 21.10.2010, at 3.12, Denny Lin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:45:17PM +0100, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:32 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-10-20 12:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Oh, interesting.
Timo Sirainen put forth on 10/20/2010 11:53 AM:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 21:55 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Any chance the mbox/mdbox writer code could be modified to do physical
>> preallocation on files to help avoid file(system) fragmentation?
>
> I've been thinking about that before.
>
>>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:45:17PM +0100, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:32 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 2010-10-20 12:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > > Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better: Linux
> > > has fallocate() that can do it for other fi
On 21.10.2010, at 3.12, Denny Lin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:45:17PM +0100, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:32 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-20 12:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better: Linux
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:32 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-10-20 12:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better: Linux
> > has fallocate() that can do it for other filesystems than just XFS. Or
> > looks like it's only XFS and ext4 (ext3
On 2010-10-20 12:53 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Oh, interesting. I didn't know that was possible. And even better: Linux
> has fallocate() that can do it for other filesystems than just XFS. Or
> looks like it's only XFS and ext4 (ext3 doesn't support it).
How about reiserfs (3, not 4)?
--
Best
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 21:55 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Any chance the mbox/mdbox writer code could be modified to do physical
> preallocation on files to help avoid file(system) fragmentation?
I've been thinking about that before.
> "What you want is _physical_ preallocation, not speculative
Hi Timo,
Any chance the mbox/mdbox writer code could be modified to do physical
preallocation on files to help avoid file(system) fragmentation?
Constantly appending a file is the prime recipe for causing
fragmentation, and mbox is notorious for this--not a fault of Dovecot
but the nature of the m
16 matches
Mail list logo
