Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))

From: Andreas Dilger (
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 10:31:50 EST

On Oct 08, 2002 15:54 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Part of the problem here is that it has got worse over time. The
> > size of a blockgroup is hardwired to blocksize*bits-in-a-byte*blocksize.
> > But disks keep on getting bigger. Five years ago (when, presumably, this
> > algorithm was designed), a typical partition had, what? Maybe four
> > blockgroups? Now it has hundreds, and so the "levelling" is levelling
> > across hundreds of blockgroups and not just a handful.
> If having only "a few" block groups really work better
> (even for todays bigger disks) then bigger
> block groups seems like a solution.
> changing the on-disk format might not be popular, but there
> is no need for that. Simply regard several on-disk block
> groups as a bigger "allocation group" when using the above
> algorithm. This should be perfectly backwards compatible.

We already have plans for something like this - a "meta blockgroup".
This will help us with several things, actually, so it is likely to
be implemented.

Cheers, Andreas

Andreas Dilger

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:25 EST