Re: Improving RAIDframe Parity Handling: The Diff

[Jed Davis <jld%panix.com@localhost>]

mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst) writes:

> tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost (Matthias Scheler) writes:
[newfs]
>>I'm sorry but I don't understand why this is a problem. It should only
>>mean that the parity rewrite takes longer. What am I missing?
>
> Maybe the zones could be optimized for this case, but I doubt that
> this is possible without degrading performance for the normal case
> (i.e. writing files sequentially).

There are also alternate cooldown strategies that might help newfs-like
access patterns and wouldn't harm sequential writes, but I don't know
how they'd do with the many-small-files cases.  This might be worth
experimenting with, now that I think about it.

-- 
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l))))))  (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k)))))))    '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))