Hi,
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:24:49AM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> For example, when we miss the goal block we search forward
> up to 63 blocks for a *single* free block, and use that.
> Perhaps we shouldn't?
The reasoning here is that it's much cheaper to go to a single block
which is very n
Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> Andrew writes:
> > "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:55:48PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > When you truncated your file, the blocks remained preallocated
> > > > on behalf of the file, and were hence considered "used". For
> > > > some r
Stephen writes:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:24:10AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > How have you done the ext3 preallocation code?
>
> Preallocation is currently disabled in ext3. Eventually I'll probably
> get it going by adding a journal prepare-commit callback to allow the
> filesystem to
Hi,
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:24:10AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> How have you done the ext3 preallocation code?
Preallocation is currently disabled in ext3. Eventually I'll probably
get it going by adding a journal prepare-commit callback to allow the
filesystem to flush preallocation be
Andrew writes:
> "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:55:48PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > When you truncated your file, the blocks remained preallocated
> > > on behalf of the file, and were hence considered "used". For
> > > some reason, a subsequent attempt to alloca
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:55:48PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > When you truncated your file, the blocks remained preallocated
> > on behalf of the file, and were hence considered "used". For
> > some reason, a subsequent attempt to allocate blocks for the
>
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:55:48PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> When you truncated your file, the blocks remained preallocated
> on behalf of the file, and were hence considered "used". For
> some reason, a subsequent attempt to allocate blocks for the
> same file failed to use that file's prea
Manas Garg wrote:
>
> I am not sure if it should be classified as a bug, that's why I am calling it a
> problem. Here is the description:
>
It works fine with ext3 :)
That's because ext3 has per-file block preallocation
disabled.
When you truncated your file, the blocks remained preallocated
Manas Garg wrote:
>
> I am not sure if it should be classified as a bug, that's why I am calling it a
> problem. Here is the description:
Not a bug.
> If the filesystem is full, obviously, I can't write anything to that any
> longer. But if I open a file with O_TRUNC flag set, the file will be t
I am not sure if it should be classified as a bug, that's why I am calling it a
problem. Here is the description:
If the filesystem is full, obviously, I can't write anything to that any
longer. But if I open a file with O_TRUNC flag set, the file will be truncated.
Any program that opens a file
10 matches
Mail list logo
