xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: defrag xfs

To: Sonny Rao <sonny@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: defrag xfs
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:45:32 -0800
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050121055051.GB29637@kevlar.burdell.org>
References: <F62740B0EFCFC74AA6DCF52CD746242D010337FA@iu-mssg-mbx05.exchange.iu.edu> <41F07494.1060501@xfs.org> <20050121043237.GA28699@kevlar.burdell.org> <20050121051228.GA28161@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20050121055051.GB29637@kevlar.burdell.org>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:50:51AM -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:

> Yeah, my apologies if this question has been answered before, but as
> you point out, this is something that is desired by a great many
> people.

From what I can tell, it comes up often from people playing with XFS
on their desktop (because it's cool and has more buzzwords than ext3).

People generally resize to bigger sizes, because they accumulate data
for various reasons, grow the business or whatever.

I really don't hear many good reasons for shrinking the fs other than
"I didn't think about the sizes I needed and now /pr0n could really
use some of the space I'm not using in /var".

I suspect if there was any real commerical interest in this
(ie. someone would fund it's development) there are about a dozen
people who could take a crack at this right now.

> Far be it for me to pertend I understand all of the issues involved,
> but as a project I'd find it an interesting one to at least work on.

Steve Lord has given a description of what is required somewhere on
the list.  I also have something I made somewhere on how this might be
done without too many kernel changes.

> Maybe just a "simpler" off-line version would be easier to write,
> and wouldn't require kernel changes?

My initial thoughts are that would probably be quite a bit harder as
you would need to use libxfs to do all sorts of fs-magic in userspace
that we already do in the kernel with pretty well tested code-paths.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>