| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:00:54 -0400 From: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com> To: Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Kazuya Mio <k-mio@...jp.nec.com>, ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11 RESEND] libe2p: Add new function get_fragment_score() On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com> wrote: > I was thinking about this, and am wondering if it makes sense to have an absolute score for fragmentation instead of a relative one? > > By absolute I mean something like fragments per MB or similar. A bad score might be anything > 1. For files smaller than 1 MB in size it would scale the ratio to the equivalent if the file was 1MB in size (e.g. a 16kB file with 4 fragments would have a score of 256, which is clearly bad). Large files can have a score much less than 1, which is good. > > Cheers, Andreas Shouldn't be based on fragments per max extent size for ext4? And I think the max extent size for a 4KB page is 128 MB, right? Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists