Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes in should_alloc_chunk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 29.06.2017 22:49, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Our test environment is just installing the OS.  That means lots of
> creates, writes, and then renames, so there's a fair amount of metadata
> churn that results in elevated pinned_bytes.  Rsync can cause the same
> workload pretty easily too.  Nikolay was going to look into coming up
> with a configuration for fsstress that would emulate it.

I did experiment with fsstress -f rename=65 -f write=35 but this thing
just exhausted the filesystem completely, no premature ENOSPC. I also
tried doing just rename on a fs which has around 1gb free space and
again the usage was steadily incrased but no enospc was observed ;\
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux