Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Sun, 05 Jun 2016 23:31:57 +0200 as excerpted: >> > Wasn't it said, that autodefrag performs bad for anything larger than >> > ~1G? >> >> I don't recall ever seeing someone saying that. Of course, I may >> have forgotten seeing it... > I think it was mentioned below this thread: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/50444/focus=50586 > and also implied here: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/51399/match=autodefrag+large+files Yes. I was rather surprised to see Hugo say he doesn't recall seeing anyone state that autodefrag performs poorly on large (from half gig) files, and that its primary recommended use is for smaller database files such as the typical quarter-gig or smaller sqlite files created by firefox and various mail clients (thunderbird, evolution). Because I've both seen and repeated that many times, myself, and indeed, the wiki's mount options page used to say effectively that. And actually, looking at the history of the page, it was Hugo that deleted the wording to the effect that autodefrag didn't work well on large database or VM files.. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Mount_options&diff=29268&oldid=28191 So if he doesn't remember it... But perhaps Hugo read it as manual defrag, not autodefrag, as I don't remember manual defrag ever being associated with that problem (tho it did and does still have the reflinks/snapshots problem, but that's a totally different issue). Meanwhile, it's news to me that autodefrag doesn't have that problem any longer... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
