Date:Wed, 30 Apr 2025 09:27:45 +0200
From:Edgar Fu�
Message-ID:
| > By "fragments in use" do you mean
| >
| > 1) Fragment-sized pieces of disk with file data in them?
| > 2) Blocks with some but not all fragments occupied?
| > 3) Files with trailing sub-bl
> Depends on exactly what you want, though for most likely "what you
> want"s, the answer is "no". (But see below.)
>
> By "fragments in use" do you mean
>
> 1) Fragment-sized pieces of disk with file data in them?
> 2) Blocks with some but not all fragments occupied?
> 3) Files with trailing su
>>> On a populated FFS, is there an easy way to determine how many
>>> fragments are in use or how many blocks are split into fragments?
Depends on exactly what you want, though for most likely "what you
want"s, the answer is "no". (But see below.)
By "fragments in use" do you mean
1) Fragment-
Date:Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:01:05 -0400
From:Greg Troxel
Message-ID:
| Edgar Fu� writes:
|
| > On a populated FFS, is there an easy way to determine how many
| > fragments are in use or how many blocks are split into fragments?
|
| dumpfs might help.
Not a
Edgar Fuß writes:
> On a populated FFS, is there an easy way to determine how many
> fragments are in use or how many blocks are split into fragments?
dumpfs might help.My impression is that files are always the highest
number of blocks that fit, and then fragments as needed.If the files
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:11:51PM -0500, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:38:07AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> > Hello. I like this explanation. Can you help clarify by giving a
> > theoretical example?
> > -thanks
> > -Brian
>
> If sectPerSU is the per-component strip
op-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> On Jun 6, 9:50am, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> } Subject: Re: RAID stripe size (was: 5.1 RAID5 write performance)
> } On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:24:15PM +0200, Edgar Fu?
Hello. I like this explanation. Can you help clarify by giving a
theoretical example?
-thanks
-Brian
On Jun 6, 9:50am, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
} Subject: Re: RAID stripe size (was: 5.1 RAID5 write performance)
} On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:24:15PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
} > > A
> So, what's the advantage of a larger sectPerSU?
Larger is not necessarily better. Larger than the typical write size
(which is usually the filesystem block or frag size) is actually a
*dis*advantage, because it means that common writes force RMW cycles.
Much smaller than the typical access siz
> The filesystem block size (or, where this is not possible, the maximum
> cluster size the filesystem will write) should be equal to sectPerSU
> times the number of data (not parity) disks.
Yes. That's what I would call ``stripe size''. Is that the wrong term?
I have sectPerSU=32, so with a three
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:24:15PM +0200, Edgar Fu? wrote:
> > Ah, yes, the old
> > rmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmwrmw
> > cycle. Gets me every time.
> OK, I've fixed that (before doing the tests I reported the last two days).
>
> So
11 matches
Mail list logo
