Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:01:38 -0400
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:38:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I think we mostly have consensus on a calling convention which
all of the architectures (s390, power, arm, ia64, etc.); of course
then we will need to get glibc to support the new system call.
glibc has had support for a while, in emulated form:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0004.1/1153.html
So when kernel support arrives, it should be easy and (hopefully)
seamless to plug in the new syscall.
Yep. Although unfortunately given where we are in distro release
cycles (and I'm not sure where glibc is in its release cycle), it'll
probably be a year or so before most users will see the benefits. So
it would be nice if we can get samba using the fallocate() support
now, in the hopes that we can get all of the pieces aligned in time
for the next major enterprise distro releases.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Cabot, Mason B
- Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Theodore Tso
- Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Jeremy Allison
- Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Theodore Tso
- Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- From: Jeff Garzik
- Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- Prev by Date: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -utrace] Move utrace into task_struct
- Previous by thread: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- Next by thread: Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
