From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jul 21 02:10:28 2007
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D87416A419;
	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:10:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A28113C457;
	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:10:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id DDD971A4D84; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:10:27 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20070721021027.GG45894@elvis.mu.org>
References: <200707201706.l6KH6vaQ000567@repoman.freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200707201706.l6KH6vaQ000567@repoman.freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/msdosfs msdosfs_vnops.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:10:28 -0000

* Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org> [070720 10:06] wrote:
> bde         2007-07-20 17:06:57 UTC
> 
>   FreeBSD src repository
> 
>   Modified files:
>     sys/fs/msdosfs       msdosfs_vnops.c 
>   Log:
>   Implement vfs clustering for msdosfs.
...
>   msdosfs is now only slightly slower than ffs with soft updates for
>   writing and slightly faster for reading when both use their best block
>   sizes.  Writing is slower for msdosfs because of more sync writes.
>   Reading is faster for msdosfs because indirect blocks interfere with
>   clustering in ffs.

Very cool, is there any merit for modifying ffs to reallocblks for
indirect blocks?  Or does that not apply?  Basically, attempt to
keep indirect blocks closeby to either each other or possibly
the direct blocks they reference?

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein