From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Fri Oct 16 08:10:32 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832D0A16897; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:10:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hp@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (heidi.turbocat.net [88.198.202.214]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B7F1DBA; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:10:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hp@selasky.org) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C6581FE022; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:10:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r289405 - head/sys/ufs/ffs To: Bruce Evans , Warner Losh References: <201510160306.t9G3622O049128@repo.freebsd.org> <20151016151349.W1280@besplex.bde.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org From: Hans Petter Selasky Message-ID: <5620B15C.8090104@selasky.org> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:12:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151016151349.W1280@besplex.bde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:10:32 -0000 On 10/16/15 08:21, Bruce Evans wrote: > In addition, making the file contiguous in LBA space doesn't > improve the access times from flash devices because they have no seek > time. Hi, This is not exactly true, like Bruce pointed out too. Maybe there should be a check, that if the block is too small reallocate it, else leave it for the sake of the flash. Doing 1K accesses versus 64K accesses will typically show up in the performance benchmark regardless of how fast the underlying medium is. --HPS