Comments on: Size Can Matter: Improving Metadata Performance with Ext4 Journal Sizing – Part I http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Wayne Walker http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-705789 Wayne Walker Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:10:28 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-705789 My man page says 10,240,000 _fs_ blocks (ususally of 4KB each), which would be 40 GB. My man page says 10,240,000 _fs_ blocks (ususally of 4KB each), which would be 40 GB.

]]> By: mincho http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-255199 mincho Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:04:43 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-255199 man man mkfs.ext4 shows maximum journal size of 102400 fs blocks (whatever size block has). Do you have any evidence that 1GB of size was really used or only 400MB of the partition? man man mkfs.ext4 shows maximum journal size of 102400 fs blocks (whatever size block has). Do you have any evidence that 1GB of size was really used or only 400MB of the partition?

]]> By: dantrevino http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-7659 dantrevino Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-7659 <p>I dont get the 256MB recommendation. Am I reading the results wrong? It seems that there is no negative to going 1GB, other than the 744MB extra storage. These days, with 1TB going for < $100, looks like its worth the space. </p> I dont get the 256MB recommendation. Am I reading the results wrong? It seems that there is no negative to going 1GB, other than the 744MB extra storage. These days, with 1TB going for < $100, looks like its worth the space.

]]> By: laytonjb http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-7660 laytonjb Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7666/#comment-7660 <p>Well it\'s not really a recommendation but if someone held a gun to my head and said, \"pick a journal size,\" I would pick 256MB. The simple reason is that I don\'t want to waste the space. But as you point out it doesn\'t hurt at all to go to 1GB for the configurations tested. </p> <p>I guess I\'m old enough where I compress data that isn\'t being actively used and I try to reduce the number of variables in my code to save space, etc. Really what I\'m saying that is I\'m old and I remember when we did everything we could to save space. Unfortunately, old habits die hard :)</p> <p>Jeff </p> Well it\’s not really a recommendation but if someone held a gun to my head and said, \”pick a journal size,\” I would pick 256MB. The simple reason is that I don\’t want to waste the space. But as you point out it doesn\’t hurt at all to go to 1GB for the configurations tested.

I guess I\’m old enough where I compress data that isn\’t being actively used and I try to reduce the number of variables in my code to save space, etc. Really what I\’m saying that is I\’m old and I remember when we did everything we could to save space. Unfortunately, old habits die hard :)

Jeff

]]>